[1986] KECA 7 (KLR)
The court held that, despite the applicant's failure to obtain a certificate of delay and the lack of a detailed explanation for the delay, the period of delay was comparatively small. The court exercised its now unfettered discretion under the amended rules to grant the extension of time, noting the trend towards a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1986] KECA 7 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Mathenge Mugenyu; Respondent: Wanjiru Mugenyu; Respondent: Nyokabi Mugenyu
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 92 of 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time granted; costs awarded to respondent.
- Judges
- ARW Hancox
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Succession and Heirship, Registered Land Act Procedure
- 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
Samuel Mathenge Mugenyu
Applicant
Wanjiru Mugenyu
Respondent
Nyokabi Mugenyu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the absence of a certificate of delay precludes the grant of extension.
- 3 Whether the delay was sufficiently explained by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, despite the applicant's failure to obtain a certificate of delay and the lack of a detailed explanation for the delay, the period of delay was comparatively small. The court exercised its now unfettered discretion under the amended rules to grant the extension of time, noting the trend towards a more liberal approach in such applications. The court validated the steps already taken by the applicant and extended the time for instituting the appeal to June 11, 1986, but awarded costs of the application to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time granted; costs awarded to respondent.
Orders
- Time for instituting the appeal is extended to June 11, 1986.
- Costs of the application to go to the respondent in any event.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NYERI
(CORAM: HANCOX, JA (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO NAI 92 OF 1985 (NYR 7/85)
(In the matter of an intended appeal)
BETWEEN
SAMUEL MATHENGE MUGENYU ………….. APPLICANTS
AND
WANJIRU MUGENYU
NYOKABI MUGENYU …………………………. RESPONDENT
(Application for extension of time to file an intended appeal from a decree order of the High Courtof Kenya at Nyeri (J S Patel, J ) dated March 13, 1985)
in
High Court Civil Appeal No 13 of 1983)
__________
RULING
The intended appeal in which the present application is made was listed for hearing before the full court on May 21, 1986, but could not be heard because leave had not been granted to file the record of appeal out of time, as is now sought.
The case originally came before second class district magistrate at Nyeri on a reference to that court under section 120(2) of the Registered Land Act, (cap 300), to determine who were the heirs to the deceased Richard Mugenyu and entitled to succeed to the land of Tetu/Unjiru/623. The magistrate decided, on April 23, 1983, that the land should go to the two wives Wanjiru w/o Mugenyu and Margaret Nyokabi w/o Mugenu who survived him. He did not award a share in the land to his other wife Thogori Mugenyu, the mother of the present applicant, who predeceased her husband, who was apparently given the deceased’s other piece of land at Tetu/Karaihu/56, on which she was buried.
The applicant appealed to the High Court but the judge agreed with the magistrate’s finding and dismissed the first appeal on March 15, 1985. From that decision the applicant has now preferred a second appeal to the court, having filed his Notice of appeal on March 29, 1985. Accordingly, in the absence of a certificate of delay under the proviso to rule 81(1) of the Court Rules, (for which the applicant was given instituted by filing the records and memorandum by May 28, 1985. Instead it was lodged at the court’s registry on June 11, 1985, fourteen days out of time.
Mr Kaburu, on behalf of the respondent, has objected to the extension of time being mainly because, though given every opportunity to do so, the applicant never obtained his certificate of delay, so as to cover and therefore exclude from the sixty day time limit, the period stated in paragraph 4 and 5 of his supporting affidavit of September 27, 1985. Moreover, Mr Kaburu says, there was no explanation either of the applicant’s delay between lodging the record of appeal and making the present application one and a half months later on October 1, 1985. Finally, Mr Kaburu submitted, there was no indication of any important legal point arising which would make it desireable that the second appeal should be heard in any event.
The discretion to enlarge time is now unfettered since the amendment to the rules introduced by Legal Notice NO 14 of 1984, and the indications from the recent decisions of single judges and the full bench of the court are that a more liberal approach is now being adopted than formerly to these applications.
In the instant case, notwithstanding that there is no certificate of delay the extra time sought is comparatively small. Having considered Mr Kaburu’s submission, I nevertheless propose to grant the application, and extend the time for instituting the appeal to June 11, 1986, so as to validate that which has been done. However, I award the costs of this application to go to the respondent in any event.
Dated at Nyeri this 25th day of November, 1986.
ARW Hancox
Judge of Appeal
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR