[2017] KEELC 1183 (KLR)
The court found that neither the applicant nor the respondents were present when the judgment was delivered, and the notice of delivery was only posted on the Law Society's website and notice board, making it plausible that the applicant was unaware of the judgment date. The application for extension of time was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1183 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Kako Kakulu; Respondent: Mwangangi Kakulu; Respondent: Munywoki Nzoka
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 124 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Service of Judgment, Appellate Jurisdiction
- 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
Patrick Kako Kakulu
Applicant
Mwangangi Kakulu
Respondent
Munywoki Nzoka
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should extend time for the applicant to file and serve a notice of appeal after the lapse of the prescribed period.
- 2 Whether the applicant was properly notified of the judgment delivery date.
- 3 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was excusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither the applicant nor the respondents were present when the judgment was delivered, and the notice of delivery was only posted on the Law Society's website and notice board, making it plausible that the applicant was unaware of the judgment date. The application for extension of time was filed two months after judgment, which the court deemed neither unreasonable nor inexcusable. The applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court, relying on Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and relevant case law, held that it had jurisdiction to grant the extension and that the circumstances justified the exercise of discretion in the applicant's...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Time for filing and serving the notice of appeal is extended.
- The notice of appeal dated 22nd February, 2017 and filed on 27th February, 2017 is deemed properly on record.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2010
PATRICK KAKO KAKULU ...........................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
MWANGANGI KAKULU ...................................1ST RESPONDENT
MUNYWOKI NZOKA .......................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. What is before me is the Applicant’s Application dated 6th March, 2017 in which the Applicant is seeking for the following orders:
a. That this Honourable Court be pleased to extent time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal and the notice of appeal dated 22nd February, 2017 and filed on 27th February, 2017 be deemed to be properly on record.
b. That the costs of this Application be provided for.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Applicant’s Appeal was dismissed on 27th January, 2017; that as at the time the Judgment was read, the Applicant was not in court and that the Judgment notice was never served on the Applicant.
3. The Applicant has deponed that he only came to learn about the Judgment much later and that his appeal has high chances of success.
4. Although the Respondents were served with the Application, they did not file any responses.
5. It is true that when the Judgment of this court was read on 27th January, 2017, neither the Applicant’s nor the Respondents’ advocates were in court.
6. According to the record, the court directed that the said Judgment was to be delivered on notice.
7. The Judgments and Rulings that were delivered by this court on 27th January, 2017 were more than thirty (30).
8. Consequently, the notice that was issued by the court was via the Law Society’s website and the notice board. It is therefore possible that the said notice was not read by the parties herein.
9. The Appellant’s counsel has submitted that pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, the High Court, and by extension this court, has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the application for extension of time within which to lodge a notice of appeal.
10. Counsel relied on the case of Kenya Airports Authority Vs. Timothy Nduvi Mutungi (2014) eKLR, in which Githinji JA held as follows:
“The Application to extension of time for lodging a notice of appeal made in the High Court was competent and which the High Court should have determined ... As I have already observed, the High Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to entertain and determine the application for extension of time.”
11. Considering that the Applicant herein might not have been aware of the notice for the delivery of the Judgment of 27th January, 2017, and in view of the fact that the current application was filed two (2) months after the said Judgment, I find that the delay in lodging a Notice of Appeal is neither unreasonable nor inexcusable.
12. The Applicant has given a plausible explanation as to why he was unable to file the notice of appeal within the requisite time.
13. I therefore allow the Application dated 6th March, 2017 as prayed.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE