[2022] KECA 688 (KLR)

[2022] KECA 688 (KLR)

The court found that although there was inordinate delay in filing the record of appeal, the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, including the departure of the advocate's clerk and difficulties in obtaining necessary documents from the court file. The court noted that the intended appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KECA 688 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Muiruri Ng'ang'a; Respondent: Mary Waithira Muiruri
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E139 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DK Musinga
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Delay Explanation, Right of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Process Delay Explanation Right of Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Muiruri Ng'ang'a

Applicant

Mary Waithira Muiruri

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file the appeal out of time.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was inordinate delay in filing the record of appeal, the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, including the departure of the advocate's clerk and difficulties in obtaining necessary documents from the court file. The court noted that the intended appeal was arguable, relating to a parcel of land, and that the respondent had not opposed the application or demonstrated any prejudice that would result from granting the extension. Exercising its discretion, the court held that it was just and reasonable to allow the applicant to file the appeal out of time, thereby upholding the applicant's constitutional right of appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to file the appeal out of time.
  • The appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.