[2021] KECA 997 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 997 (KLR)

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any justification for the inordinate delay in filing the notice of appeal, which was several months late. The court found that the applicant did not present any substantive grounds for the delay or for the intended appeal,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 997 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Regional Centre on Small Arms in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa and Bordering States (RECSA); Respondent: Marie Claire Bisamaza
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E357 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Unfair Termination, Ex Parte Judgment, Review of Decision, Stay of Execution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Extension of Time Unfair Termination Ex Parte Judgment Review of Decision Stay of Execution

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regional Centre on Small Arms in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa and Bordering States (RECSA)

Applicant

Marie Claire Bisamaza

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient justification for extension of time to file and serve the notice and record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate and unexplained.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal has any prospects of success or is frivolous.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any justification for the inordinate delay in filing the notice of appeal, which was several months late. The court found that the applicant did not present any substantive grounds for the delay or for the intended appeal, other than a general assertion of the right to be heard. The court also considered the prejudice to the respondent, who would be adversely affected if the matter were reopened nearly a year after judgment. The exercise of judicial discretion by the trial judge was found to be proper, and the applicant's prior pursuit of review in the trial court further undermined the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs to the respondent.