[2010] KEHC 2923 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence at the delivery of judgment, despite having been notified of the date. However, the court recognized the overarching principle that litigants should not be unjustly barred from accessing justice and exercising their...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2923 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Pan African Paper Mills (E.A) Ltd; Applicant: Joash Chiliva Wafula; Respondent: Amos Barasa Sifuna
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 41 & 42 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Extension of Time, Judgment Notification, Costs Award
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pan African Paper Mills (E.A) Ltd
Applicant
Joash Chiliva Wafula
Applicant
Amos Barasa Sifuna
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient reason for failing to file an appeal within the prescribed time.
- 2 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted despite the applicants' absence at judgment delivery.
- 3 Whether the applicants should be condemned to pay costs for the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence at the delivery of judgment, despite having been notified of the date. However, the court recognized the overarching principle that litigants should not be unjustly barred from accessing justice and exercising their right of appeal. Balancing procedural default against the right to appeal, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for leave to appeal out of time, subjecting the applicants to payment of costs as a consequence of their procedural lapse. The court ordered that the intended appeal be filed within 21 days from the date of the ruling.
Court Disposition
application allowed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- Leave to appeal out of time is granted.
- Applicants to file the appeal within 21 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
Miscellaneous Application 41& 42 of 2002
PAN AFRICAN PAPER MILLS (E.A) LTD
JOASH CHILIVA WAFULA::::::::::::::::APPLICANTS
~VRS~
AMOS BARASA SIFUNA::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
RULING
This is a ruling on two similar applications which were heard by Justice Mitey on8/9/2003. The ruling was not deliveredfollowing retirement of the judge.
The Defendant’s applications both dated12/2/2002seek for leave to file an appeal out of time from the judgment of M/S Mutende, Resident Magistrate, Webuye dated30/11/2001in RM CC No.85 and 88 both of 2001. The grounds supporting the application were argued by Mr. Nyairo for the Applicants.He submitted that the Applicants only came to know about the ruling after 30 days allowed for appeal had expired.It was not until the Applicants were served with a bill of costs by the Respondent’s advocates that he came to know.The Applicants or their advocates were not present when judgment was delivered.
The second ground is that the Applicants wish to appeal against the quantum of damages awarded by the magistrate which he says is inordinately high.
The Respondent opposed the application.Mr. Kitiwa’s brief was held by Mr. Makokha who argued the Respondent’s case relying on the replying affidavit.He submitted that judgment was delivered on30/11/2001. Both parties had appeared before the court onthe 9th November 2001and were duly notified of the date for judgment.The Applicants were under a duty to inquire about the judgment immediately it was delivered in the event that they or their advocate were not able to attend.No efforts have been made to explain why the Applicant failed to attend court on the date of judgment.
I am in agreement with the Respondent that the Applicants have not given any explanation why they or their advocate failed to go to court for delivery of judgment having been notified of the date of judgment earlier.However, I am aware of the fact that the Applicants should not be shut out from the doors of justice if they wish to appeal.For thisreason, I allow the application and condemn the Applicants to meet the costs.The appeal to be filed within 21 days.
F. N. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
Dated, Delivered and Signed this 29 day of April 2010.
In the presence of Mr Makokha for Kitiwa for respondent.