[2021] KECA 20 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 20 (KLR)

The Court found that the delay of two days in filing the application for leave to appeal was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained by the applicant's advocate, who encountered technical difficulties with the Judiciary e-filing platform. The applicant had communicated the issue to the Deputy Registrar in a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 20 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Ouma Onyango; Respondent: Geoffrey Komu Mungai
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E103 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DK Musinga
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Discretion, Electronic Filing, Procedural Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Judicial Discretion Electronic Filing Procedural Delay

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Ouma Onyango

Applicant

Geoffrey Komu Mungai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay of 2 days in filing the application is inordinate and excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal should have been made before the trial court or the appellate court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the delay of two days in filing the application for leave to appeal was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained by the applicant's advocate, who encountered technical difficulties with the Judiciary e-filing platform. The applicant had communicated the issue to the Deputy Registrar in a timely manner. The Court further held that the intended appeal was not frivolous and that the respondent would not suffer any prejudice if the extension was granted. The applicant was not to be blamed for the delay, and his constitutional right of appeal should not be denied in the circumstances. Accordingly, the application for extension of time was allowed.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is allowed.
  • The notice of appeal shall be filed and served within 14 days from the date of this ruling.