[2022] KEELC 2953 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 2953 (KLR)

The court found that although there was a delay in filing the appeal, the delay was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained by the applicant’s illness and late knowledge of the ruling. The court was satisfied that the intended appeal was not frivolous, as there were triable issues discernible from the draft...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 2953 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Erick Odhiambo Ong’ondo; Respondent: Aloice Obongo Ongus
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E001 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Environment and Land Court Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Out of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Environment and Land Court Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erick Odhiambo Ong’ondo

Applicant

Aloice Obongo Ongus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate or excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and not frivolous.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was a delay in filing the appeal, the delay was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained by the applicant’s illness and late knowledge of the ruling. The court was satisfied that the intended appeal was not frivolous, as there were triable issues discernible from the draft memorandum of appeal. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, guided by statutory and case law principles on extension of time, and granted the applicant forty-five days to file and serve the record of appeal. The respondent would not suffer prejudice, and the applicant’s constitutional rights to access to justice and fair hearing warranted the grant of...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant is granted forty-five (45) days from the date of the order to file and serve the record of appeal and orders.
  • Costs of the application to abide the intended appeal.