[2024] KEELC 1450 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 1450 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory and cogent explanation for the delay in filing the application for enlargement of time to appeal. The applicants did not unequivocally acknowledge that they applied for the lower court proceedings after the statutory period had expired, and even...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 1450 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Adan Isack Orto; Applicant: Paul Hirbo Isatu; Respondent: Dambala Abudo Ali
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 15 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
PM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals, Delay in Filing, Discretion of Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Delay in Filing Discretion of Court

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adan Isack Orto

Applicant

Paul Hirbo Isatu

Applicant

Dambala Abudo Ali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause for enlargement of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application was excusable under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would be prejudiced by the grant of the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory and cogent explanation for the delay in filing the application for enlargement of time to appeal. The applicants did not unequivocally acknowledge that they applied for the lower court proceedings after the statutory period had expired, and even after obtaining the typed proceedings, they waited an additional five months before filing the application. The court held that such delay was inordinate and not sufficiently explained. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for enlargement of time to file an appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent.