[1997] KECA 354 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant acted promptly after its previous appeal was struck out and filed the application for extension of time without undue delay. There was no evidence that the applicant was responsible for any delay in the prosecution of the application. The respondent did not oppose the application....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] KECA 354 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul's Bakery & Confectionary Ltd.; Respondent: The Commissioner of Income Tax
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 181 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Income Tax Disputes
- 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
Paul's Bakery & Confectionary Ltd.
Applicant
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the application was attributable to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant acted promptly after its previous appeal was struck out and filed the application for extension of time without undue delay. There was no evidence that the applicant was responsible for any delay in the prosecution of the application. The respondent did not oppose the application. In the absence of opposition and in view of the applicant's prompt action, the court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time sought, subject to specific timelines for filing and serving the notice of appeal and record of appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time allowed.
Orders
- Notice of appeal to be filed within three days of the date of the ruling.
- Notice of appeal to be served upon the respondent within seven days of its lodgement.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: OMOLO, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 181 OF 1996
BETWEEN
PAUL'S BAKERY & CONFECTIONARY LTD. ................. APPLICANT
AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..................... RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file appeal out of time in an intended appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Aluoch J) dated 5th December, 1991 in INCOME TAXAPPEAL NO. 98 OF 1988) *********************
R U L I N G
The previous appeal by the applicant was struck out by the court on the 9th May, 1996. This application was filed on 31st May, 1996. The applicant acted with reasonable speed after its appeal was struck out. It is not clear to me why the application has been pending since the 31st May, 1996 when it was filed but there is no evidence that the applicant is responsible for that delay. The respondent though served has not attended to oppose the application. No affidavit in opposition has been filed. In the circumstances, I allow this application and order that the notice of appeal must be filed within three days of the date hereof and served upon the respondent within seven days of its lodgement. The record of appeal must be filed within fourteen days of the date hereof. The costs of the application shall be in the appeal. Those are my orders.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of April, 1997.
R. S. C. OMOLO
---------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR