[2024] KEELC 6099 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 6099 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, as it was not indicated when the applicant discovered the judgment. The only supporting documents were a draft memorandum of appeal and a letter to court, with no evidence of prompt action upon...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 6099 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Jared Omondi Onyango; Respondent: The Legal Representatives of the Estate of Mohamed Zakaria Sadik (Deceased); Respondent: Masave Mwololo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Delay and Explanation, Right to Fair Hearing
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Delay and Explanation Right to Fair Hearing

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jared Omondi Onyango

Appellant

The Legal Representatives of the Estate of Mohamed Zakaria Sadik (Deceased)

Respondent

Masave Mwololo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the appeal under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an arguable appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, as it was not indicated when the applicant discovered the judgment. The only supporting documents were a draft memorandum of appeal and a letter to court, with no evidence of prompt action upon learning of the judgment. The court further found that the applicant did not have an arguable appeal and was guilty of inordinate delay. Applying the principles from Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and relevant case law, the court held that the application was an afterthought, lacked merit, and did not justify the exercise of discretion to extend time. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file the appeal is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.