[2025] KEELRC 1990 (KLR)

[2025] KEELRC 1990 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The evidence showed that the judgment was uploaded and available to the parties on the date of delivery, and the applicant delayed in formally requesting a copy and in seeking proceedings without adequate explanation. The court held that the delay was attributable to the applicant, not the court, and that the application did not meet the threshold for exercise of discretion to extend time. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed for lack of merit.

Citation
[2025] KEELRC 1990 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Charles Ouma Onyango; Respondent: Flashcom Security Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E328 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AK Nzei
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Court Discretion, Delay in Filing, Procedural Noncompliance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Out of Time Court Discretion Delay in Filing Procedural Noncompliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Ouma Onyango

Applicant

Flashcom Security Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by the court or by the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's application meets the threshold for exercise of the court's discretion to extend time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The evidence showed that the judgment was uploaded and available to the parties on the date of delivery, and the applicant delayed in formally requesting a copy and in seeking proceedings without adequate explanation. The court held that the delay was attributable to the applicant, not the court, and that the application did not meet the threshold for exercise of discretion to extend time. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 12th November, 2024 is dismissed.
  • Each party will bear its own costs of the application.