[2002] KECA 138 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was guilty of laches due to its inordinate and unexplained delay in prosecuting the application. The applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the four-year delay after lodging the application, and the court held that such procrastination is contrary to public...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KECA 138 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ocean Freight Company Limited; Respondent: Oakdale Commodities Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 21 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Delay in Filing Appeal, Laches, Exercise of Discretion, Dismissal for Inordinate Delay
- 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
Ocean Freight Company Limited
Applicant
Oakdale Commodities Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in prosecuting the application.
- 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application is so inordinate as to warrant dismissal.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow the application despite the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was guilty of laches due to its inordinate and unexplained delay in prosecuting the application. The applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the four-year delay after lodging the application, and the court held that such procrastination is contrary to public policy and prejudicial to the respondent. The court therefore refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and dismissed the application with costs, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: TUNOI, J.A (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 21 OF 1998
BETWEEN
OCEAN FREIGHT COMPANY LIMITED..............................APPLICANT
AND
OAKDALE COMMODITIES LIMITED..........................RESPONDENTS
(Being an Appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Lady Justice Owuor) dated 6th day of August, 1992( re-dated again on 19th January, 1998) in H.C.C.C 4434 OF 1989) *************
R U L I N G
The judgment the subject matter of the intended appeal was delivered way back in 1992. Though the initial blame lay squarely on the then learned Judge of the superior court, the applicant cannot offer a reasonable explanation for its inactivity since 4th February, 1998.
It is worthy of note that Civil Application No. 198 of 1995 granted leave to the applicant to lodge its appeal out of time after a successful reference to the full court. However, the success was short lived for on 24th September, 1997, Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1995 was struck out on the ground that the decree incorporated in the record of appeal was fundamentally faulty as it did not contain the date when the judgment was delivered. Though this application was lodged in the Registry on 4th February, 1998, after the judgment had been dated on 19th January, 1998, the same was not been brought up for hearing until precisely four years afterwards. Mr. Oonge for the applicant frankly says that he is unable to offer any explanation.
In my view the applicant is guilty of laches. The delay in prosecuting the application is too inordinate and cannot be condoned. To resurrect a matter that came to an end ten years ago would be prejudicial to the respondent. As a matter of public policy procrastination in civil litigation is not to be encouraged. Litigation must be brought to an end. In my opinion, I have no basis to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant. I refuse the application and I order that it be dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of June, 2002
P. K. TUNOI
..........
JUDGE OF APPEAL