[1999] KECA 58 (KLR)

[1999] KECA 58 (KLR)

The court found that although it doubted the necessity of waiting for a certified copy of the court order, the delay of twenty days was not so inordinate as to deprive the applicant of the court's discretion to extend time. The applicant had a right of appeal, and the explanation for the delay, while not entirely...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] KECA 58 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Francis Ndungu Kirori; Respondent: Wanyonyi Wamatu; Respondent: Everlyne Murugi Rufus; Respondent: Cecilia Wambui Njoroge; Respondent: Patrick Gathitho Waithaka
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 10 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Appellate Procedure
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Appellate Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Francis Ndungu Kirori

Respondent

Wanyonyi Wamatu

Respondent

Everlyne Murugi Rufus

Respondent

Cecilia Wambui Njoroge

Respondent

Patrick Gathitho Waithaka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the delay of twenty days in filing the application for extension of time was inordinate and justified refusal of extension.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a certified copy of the court order striking out the notice of appeal was a valid reason for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although it doubted the necessity of waiting for a certified copy of the court order, the delay of twenty days was not so inordinate as to deprive the applicant of the court's discretion to extend time. The applicant had a right of appeal, and the explanation for the delay, while not entirely convincing, did not warrant refusal of the application. The court therefore exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant and allowed the motion for extension of time.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant must lodge its notice of appeal within seven days of the date hereof.
  • The applicant must lodge its record of appeal within a further seven days from the date of lodging the notice of appeal.