[2024] KEELC 6526 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 6526 (KLR)

The court found that the exparte applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the substantive judicial review application, namely, the difficulty in contacting him due to his homelessness and lack of a mobile phone. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 6526 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: County Land Registrar, Mombasa; Applicant: Mohamed Juma Mohamed
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Planning Judicial Review E001 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Substantive Application
Outcome
Application allowed; time to file and serve substantive application extended by 14 days; applicant to bear own costs.
Judges
SM Kibunja
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review Procedure, Land Registration
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Judicial Review Procedure Land Registration

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

County Land Registrar, Mombasa

Respondent

Mohamed Juma Mohamed

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Substantive Application

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for filing and serving the substantive judicial review application after the lapse of the initial 21 days granted.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing was justified by the applicant's circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the exparte applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the substantive judicial review application, namely, the difficulty in contacting him due to his homelessness and lack of a mobile phone. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing and serving the substantive application by a further fourteen days from the date of the ruling. The court noted that the application was unopposed and that the interests of justice would be served by granting the extension. However, the court ordered that the exparte applicant should bear his own costs, as the delay was attributable solely to him.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; time to file and serve substantive application extended by 14 days; applicant to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Time to file and serve the substantive application is extended by fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling.
  • The exparte applicant shall meet his own costs in the application.