[2021] KECA 794 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 794 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had already filed a notice of cross-appeal in accordance with the relevant rules, and that the application for extension of time was unnecessary. The timelines for lodging a notice of cross-appeal are clearly stipulated in Rule 93(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 794 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Wanyonyi Khaemba; Respondent: Faith Jerop Kiu; Respondent: Beatrice Wangare Kiu
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 155 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GK Oenga
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court of Appeal Rules

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Wanyonyi Khaemba

Applicant

Faith Jerop Kiu

Respondent

Beatrice Wangare Kiu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal, memorandum, and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time is necessary given the applicant has already filed a notice of cross-appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had already filed a notice of cross-appeal in accordance with the relevant rules, and that the application for extension of time was unnecessary. The timelines for lodging a notice of cross-appeal are clearly stipulated in Rule 93(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant's claim of ignorance of the rules was not persuasive, as the documents filed demonstrated familiarity with the procedural requirements. Consequently, the application was deemed superfluous and dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.