[2000] KECA 111 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any explanation for the delay of over four months in bringing the application for extension of time after leave to appeal was granted. Despite being given an opportunity to address the delay through a supplementary affidavit, the applicants did not demonstrate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KECA 111 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ngugi Kimuhu; Applicant: Nyanjui Kimuhu; Applicant: Ndege Kimuhu; Respondent: Wagutu Mwaniki; Respondent: Miriam Nyakairo; Respondent: Mwaniki Mbucha Mwaniki
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 131 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Adverse Possession, Appeal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ngugi Kimuhu
Applicant
Nyanjui Kimuhu
Applicant
Ndege Kimuhu
Applicant
Wagutu Mwaniki
Respondent
Miriam Nyakairo
Respondent
Mwaniki Mbucha Mwaniki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the application for extension of time.
- 2 Whether the application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any explanation for the delay of over four months in bringing the application for extension of time after leave to appeal was granted. Despite being given an opportunity to address the delay through a supplementary affidavit, the applicants did not demonstrate urgency or sufficient cause. The court concluded that the applicants themselves did not treat the matter as urgent and therefore there was no justification for the court to treat it as such. As a result, the application for a certificate of urgency and extension of time was declined.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time is dismissed.
- No certificate of urgency is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: BOSIRE, J.A.(IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 131 OF 1999
BETWEEN
1. NGUGI KIMUHU
2. NYANJUI KIMUHU
3. NDEGE KIMUHU .......................APPLICANTS
AND
1. WAGUTU MWANIKI
2. MIRIAM NYAKAIRO ..............RESPONDENTS
3. MWANIKI MBUCHA MWANIKI
Application for extension oftime to file a notice of appeal and a record of appeal out of time from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice B. Tanui) dated 25th April 1996 in H.C.C.C. No.6000 of 1985(O.S) ***************
RULING
The three applicants brought action by Originating Summons seeking declaratory orders that they had become entitled to an interest in a parcel of land known as Ndarugu/Gakoe/205 by adverse possession and a further order that they be registered as owners thereof in place of the respondents as administrators of the estate of Wainaina Karanja alias Mwangi Wambucha, deceased, who was the registered owner of the land in question. The suit was dismissed by Tanui, J. and an appeal against that decision, to wit Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1998, was struck out on 15th December, 1998, for incompetence. This application was filed on 8th June, 1999, about six months after that. It is an application for an order extending the time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal and a record of appeal out of time.
The affidavit in support of the application states that after the applicant's appeal was struck out they moved the superior court for leave to appeal which leave was granted on 27th January, 1999. There is however no explanation as to the delay of over four months in bringing this application. That is so notwithstanding that on 7th February 2000, I granted leave to the applicants to file a supplimentary affidavit on the matter. In view of that, I do not think that the applicants themselves have treated this matter as being urgent and I see no reason for treating it as such. I decline to grant the certificate of urgency.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 15th day of February 2000.
S.E.O. BOSIRE
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR