[2014] KEHC 7813 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant had shown laxity in prosecuting the matter, the interests of justice required that the substantive application be heard. The court relied on Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, which mandates courts to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 7813 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: District Land Registrar Thika; Applicant: Stephen Kiongo Kairu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 65 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Judicial Review Procedure, Mistake of Counsel
- 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
Republic
Applicant
District Land Registrar Thika
Respondent
Stephen Kiongo Kairu
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant an extension of time to file the substantive notice of motion after the lapse of leave previously granted.
- 2 Whether the mistake of counsel in failing to file the application within time should be visited upon the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant had shown laxity in prosecuting the matter, the interests of justice required that the substantive application be heard. The court relied on Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, which mandates courts to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities. The court also accepted that the mistake of counsel and the applicant's inability to raise fees were sufficient reasons for the delay. As the application was unopposed, the court exercised its discretion to allow the extension of time, directing the applicant to file and serve the substantive notice of motion within ten days.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant is granted an extension of time to file the substantive notice of motion.
- The applicant shall file and serve the substantive notice of motion within ten (10) days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JR CASE NO 65 OF 2013
REPUBLIC....................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR THIKA…………………RESPONDENT
Ex-Parte
STEPHEN KIONGO KAIRU
RULING
The Applicant, Stephen Kiongo Kairu has filed a notice of motion application dated 23rd September, 2013 in which he prays for the extension of the time within which to file the substantive notice of motion. The application is supported by grounds on its face and the supporting affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 23rd September, 2013. The application is not opposed. According to the grounds in support of the application, it is stated that the leave granted to the Applicant on 23rd May, 2013 lapsed due to the Applicant’s inability to raise the required fees.
When the matter came up on 18th June, 2013 the Applicant’s counsel was allegedly advised by the Court to file a formal application for extension of time. The application was, however, not filed until 23rd September, 2013 due to an oversight on the part of counsel. It is argued that mistake of counsel should not be visited upon the Applicant.
In his affidavit, the Applicant swore that he lost contact with counsel and that is why he did not file the application promptly.
The Constitution provides that courts should administer justice without undue regard to technicalities-Article 159(2)(d). Although the applicant has shown laxity in the prosecution of this matter, I think it is in the interests of justice that his substantive application should be heard. The application is therefore allowed. The application was not defended and there is no order as to costs. The Applicant is directed to file and serve the substantive notice of motion within ten (10) days from the date of the delivery of this ruling.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 30th day of April, 2014
W. KORIR,
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT