[2021] KEHC 12581 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had made formal requests for certified copies of the proceedings and judgment, which were not supplied by the court registry. Although the applicant did not immediately request the documents after the initial order, the responsibility to provide them lies with the court once a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 12581 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Mutungi; Respondent: Ahmed Kore Abdi; Respondent: Batula Kore Abdi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 53 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process
- 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 Mutungi
Applicant
Ahmed Kore Abdi
Respondent
Batula Kore Abdi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for extension of time to file the Record of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the delay in obtaining certified copies of proceedings and judgment is excusable.
- 3 Whether granting the extension would prejudice the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had made formal requests for certified copies of the proceedings and judgment, which were not supplied by the court registry. Although the applicant did not immediately request the documents after the initial order, the responsibility to provide them lies with the court once a request is made. Given the lack of response from the registry and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court determined that the delay was excusable. The court exercised its discretion to allow the extension of time, prioritizing the determination of the appeal on its merits over procedural technicalities. The court declined to alter the terms of the existing stay of execution...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Time for filing the Record of Appeal is extended by forty-five (45) days from the date of this ruling.
- Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO. 53 OF 2020
PATRICK MUTUNGI.....................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
AHMED KORE ABDI..........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
BATULA KORE ABDI........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 6th March, 2020 seeks orders that this honourable court be pleased to extend the time, by forty-five (45) days, within which to put in the Record of Appeal.
2. The application is premised on the grounds stated therein and the supporting affidavit sworn by counsel for the Applicant. It is stated that on 28th January, 2020, the Applicant was granted orders for stay of execution as a condition for the Memorandum of Appeal be filed within 14 days and the Record of Appeal filed within 45 days of the said ruling. That the certified copies of the proceedings and judgment are yet to be obtained. That follow-ups made with the court registry have not born any fruit. That the Memorandum of Appeal has been filed and the orders made for the filing of the Record of Appeal lapsed on 13th March, 2020. The Applicant is apprehensive that if execution proceeds, his arguable Appeal will be rendered nugatory.
3. The application is opposed. It is stated in the replying affidavit that the Applicant did not follow up on the proceedings and judgment promptly. That no explanation has been given for the delay in following up on the proceedings and judgment. That the Respondents will be prejudiced as they continue to be denied the fruits of their judgment. The court was urged to order the release of half the decretal sum and the deposit of the balance if the application is allowed as no security has been given for the due performance of the decree.
4. I have considered the application, the response to the same and the submissions filed by the respective counsel for the parties.
5. On enlargement of time, the principles applicable were set out by the Supreme Court of Kenya in the Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 others [2014] eKLRas follows:
“This being the first case in which this court is called upon to consider the principles for extension of time, we derive the following as the under-lying principles that a court should consider in exercise of such discretion:
1. Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;
2. A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court;
3. Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case to case basis;
4. Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the court.
5. Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted;
6. Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and
7. Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be consideration for extending time.”
6. The Applicant has exhibited two letters stamped as received in court on 24th February, 2020 and 27th February, 2020 respectively requesting for the certified copies of the proceedings and judgment. It appears there has been no response to the said letters. It is not clear why the Applicant did not apply for the proceedings and judgment immediately after the orders giving her 45 days to file the Record of Appeal were granted. However, it is the responsibility of the court to supply the typed and certified copies of the proceedings and judgment once a request is made. It is today more than ten months since the first request was received in court, yet there is no evidence of supply of the same. In the meantime the COVID 19 pandemic has not made things easier.
7. With the foregoing, this court is inclined to allow the application for the Appeal to be determined on merits. This court is at this stage reluctant to revisit the terms upon which the stay of execution orders were granted.
8. The upshot is that the application is allowed with costs in cause.
Date, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of Jan., 2021
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE