[2024] KEHC 2694 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 2694 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, namely, attending to the urgent medical needs of a relative, which constituted sufficient cause. The court also noted that the delay was not inordinate, as the application was filed within a reasonable period after the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 2694 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Kirigha Samuel; Respondent: Alima Mwakio
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Voi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E025 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
GMA Dulu
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Sufficient Cause, Appeals From Subordinate Courts
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Sufficient Cause Appeals From Subordinate Courts

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

Daniel Kirigha Samuel

Applicant

Alima Mwakio

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate or excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if the orders sought are granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, namely, attending to the urgent medical needs of a relative, which constituted sufficient cause. The court also noted that the delay was not inordinate, as the application was filed within a reasonable period after the judgment. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondent would not suffer any prejudice since the applicant was only seeking leave to appeal out of time and not any substantive order affecting the respondent's rights. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion in favor of the applicant and granted the extension of time to file the appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Time for the applicant to file appeal is extended; the appeal must be filed within seven (7) days from the date of the ruling.
  • Costs of the application will follow the determination of the appeal.