[2018] KEELC 1895 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1895 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the date when the ruling was delivered and that this explanation was not challenged by the respondents or interested parties. The court held that the power to extend time is discretionary and should be exercised to meet the ends of justice. Given the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 1895 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Igembe District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer; Respondent: The Attorney General; Interested Party: Joseph Mwenda Malebe; Interested Party: Joseph Ntumburi; Interested Party: Stephen Mwiti; Interested Party: Justus Murerwa; Exparte Applicant: Isaiah Miriti
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 100 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Judicial Review Procedure, Land Adjudication, Exercise of Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Judicial Review Procedure Land Adjudication Exercise of Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Igembe District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Joseph Mwenda Malebe

Interested Party

Joseph Ntumburi

Interested Party

Stephen Mwiti

Interested Party

Justus Murerwa

Interested Party

Isaiah Miriti

Exparte Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was properly notified of the ruling date.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the date when the ruling was delivered and that this explanation was not challenged by the respondents or interested parties. The court held that the power to extend time is discretionary and should be exercised to meet the ends of justice. Given the uncontroverted explanation for the delay and the applicant's right to appeal, the court was satisfied that sufficient cause had been shown to warrant the extension. The application for extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal was therefore merited and allowed.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to file and serve notice of appeal within 21 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The costs of this application to be costs in the cause.