[2016] KECA 705 (KLR)

[2016] KECA 705 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient and coherent explanation for the delay between the dismissal of his application on 7th October, 2014 and the filing of the present application on 15th October, 2015. The applicant's submissions and supporting documents were confused and did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KECA 705 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Ndura Kanyara; Respondent: Mary Njambi Kariuki
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 54 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DK Musinga
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court Discretion, Delay Explanation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court Discretion Delay Explanation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Ndura Kanyara

Applicant

Mary Njambi Kariuki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010.
  3. 3 Whether granting the extension would prejudice the respondent given the protracted litigation history.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient and coherent explanation for the delay between the dismissal of his application on 7th October, 2014 and the filing of the present application on 15th October, 2015. The applicant's submissions and supporting documents were confused and did not clarify the status of the relevant appeals. The court emphasized that, even if the applicant sought leave to appeal out of time, he did not meet the requirements for the exercise of discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, as he neither explained the delay adequately nor demonstrated the chances of success of the intended appeal. Given the protracted litigation spanning...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.