[2018] KEHC 9936 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant became aware of the judgment in November 2017 and did not exhibit any letter requesting proceedings, the delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate. The explanation provided—lack of communication between the applicant and his counsel—was accepted as sufficient cause....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9936 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Oduor Shikuku; Respondent: Magnum Engineering & General Contractors Ltd; Respondent: East African Breweries Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 57 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Good and Sufficient Cause, Service of Judgment, Delay in Filing
- 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
Peter Oduor Shikuku
Applicant
Magnum Engineering & General Contractors Ltd
Respondent
East African Breweries Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated good and sufficient cause for failing to file the appeal within the prescribed time.
- 2 Whether leave should be granted to file the memorandum of appeal out of time.
- 3 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate or excusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant became aware of the judgment in November 2017 and did not exhibit any letter requesting proceedings, the delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate. The explanation provided—lack of communication between the applicant and his counsel—was accepted as sufficient cause. The court also noted that the intended appeal was arguable and that no prejudice would be occasioned to the respondents that could not be compensated by costs. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for leave to file the appeal out of time, emphasizing the importance of hearing appeals on their merits where possible.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the applicant to file and serve the intended appeal within seven (7) days of this ruling.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2017
PETER ODUOR SHIKUKU................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
MAGNUM ENGINEERING &
GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD..........1ST RESPONDENT
EAST AFRICAN BREWERIES LTD......2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 13th March, 2017 seeks orders that leave be granted to the Applicant to file a memorandum of Appeal out of time.
2. The application is predicated on the grounds stated therein and is supported by the affidavit sworn by the Appellant, Peter Oduor Shikuku. It is averred that the judgment of the lower court was delivered on 11th November, 2016 without any notice to the Applicant. That thereafter efforts to trace the court file were fruitless. That the Applicant had lost his telephone set and his advocates could not trace him to inform him of the outcome. The Applicant is aggrieved by the judgment of the lower court and is desirous of filing an appeal.
3. The application is opposed. It is stated in the replying affidavit by the 1st Respondent that the notice of judgment was put up at the trial magistrate chamber’s door. That following communication between the parties, the 1st Respondent settled it’s part of the judgment and that the issue of filing an appeal is an afterthought.
4. The 2nd Respondent stated in it’s replying affidavit that the 1st Respondent had paid the Appellant the sum of Ksh.718,343/= and the Respondent cannot now turn around after the decree has been satisfied.
5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions.
6. I have considered the application, the responses to the same and the submissions made.
7. Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act provides that:
“Every appeal from a subordinate court to the High Court shall be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of the decree or order appealed against, excluding from such period any time which the lower court may certify as having been requisite for the preparation and delivery to the appellant of a copy of the decree or order. Provided that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.”
(See also Section 59 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act and Order 50 rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A Section 95 of Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya)
8. The judgment of the lower court was delivered on 11th November, 2016. The application at hand was filed on 14th March, 2018, about three months out of time. Although the Applicant states that the judgment was delivered without notice, it is also clear from his averments that they received the letter dated 24th November, 2016 from the 1st Respondent which was stamped as received on 28th November, 2017. The said letter informed the Applicant of the delivery of the Judgment. The Applicant therefore became aware of delivery of judgment in the month of November, 2017. No letter has been exhibited herein requesting for the proceedings of the lower court to be supplied. There were also demands for payment from the 2nd Respondent as at 8th December, 2016.
9. However, the delay was not inordinate. This court is prepared to accept the explanation that there was lack of communication between the Applicant and his counsel.
10. It has been argued that the intended appeal is arguable with overwhelming chances of success and that no prejudice will be occasioned to the Respondents. The appeal is arguable. There is also no evidence that the 2nd Respondent has settled the remainder of the claim. There is only part payment by the 1st Respondent. There is therefore no prejudice that can be occasioned to the Respondent that cannot be compensated by way of costs. This court is inclined to give the intended appeal a chance to be heard on merits.
11. With the foregoing, I allow the application with costs to the Respondent. The intended appeal to be filed and served within seven (7) days hereof.
Date, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 15th day of Nov., 2018
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE