[2007] KEHC 1021 (KLR)
The court found that although there was a delay of about 30 days in filing the application for extension of time, the delay was attributable to the court's late supply of certified copies of proceedings and judgment, as evidenced by the certificate of delay. The court held that the applicant had provided a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1021 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Waweru Wang'ombe; Respondent: Mohamed Abdi Osman; Respondent: Abdirizar Parah Noor
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 104 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time allowed with costs to the respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Delay Explanation, Certificate of Delay
- 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 Waweru Wang'ombe
Applicant
Mohamed Abdi Osman
Respondent
Abdirizar Parah Noor
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for extension of time is justified.
- 3 Whether the merits of the intended appeal warrant the grant of extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was a delay of about 30 days in filing the application for extension of time, the delay was attributable to the court's late supply of certified copies of proceedings and judgment, as evidenced by the certificate of delay. The court held that the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the court noted that the merits of the intended appeal, particularly the issue of the admissibility of medical evidence, warranted consideration at the appellate level. The court concluded that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the extension since the judgment in the lower court was in his favour. Accordingly, the application...
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time allowed with costs to the respondent.
Orders
- Time for filing appeal is extended; applicant to file appeal within 14 days.
- Order applies to Misc. Case No. 105 of 2006 arising in similar circumstances.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Misc Civil Appli 104 of 2006
SAMUEL WAWERU WANG’OMBE………………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
MOHAMED ABDI OSMAN……….………….……...…1ST RESPONDENT
ABDIRIZAR PARAH NOOR……...……………………2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
In this application the applicant seeks order to extend time within which to file an appeal from the Judgment of a lower court. (Baricho RMCC No. 19/2005).
The application is based on grounds stated on application and there is a supporting affidavit by Counsel. This ruling applies to this file and file No. 105/06. There is a filed document titled Certificate of delay confirming that certified copies of proceedings and judgment were applied for 2/6/2006 and were supplied on 25th July 2006. This application was filed on 24/8/2006. The reasons for delay are attributed to the failure by the court to supply the necessary documents within time to enable appeal to be filed within prescribed time.
The application is opposed. The Respondent in his replying affidavit says that the delay is not justified and no reasonable explanation of delay was given in the application. Several authorities have been cited. In similar circumstances “Kuloba- Judicial Hints on Civil Procedure”states the right of appeal having been created by statute, the requirements prescribed for appealing must be strictly complied with. Each application must be decided in particular circumstances but as a general rule the Applicant must satisfactorily explain reason for delay. He further says “There may be special circumstances that may justify the court to refuse to extend time”. The applicant must show whether the appeal has any merits and ground and reasons of appeal. Where there is too long unexplained delay in applying for the record sufficient reason is not shown. An appellant must exercise his right to appeal with diligence to avoid prejudicing the other party. That was in the case of Pollock House Ltd vs Nairobi Wholesallers Ltd1972 EA 172 in the cause No.42 of 2005it was said “Although certified copies of proceedings are not required to file memorandum of appeal. The applicant needs a typed copy of Judgment to prepare the memorandum of Appeal”
In the present case the facts show that Judgment was delivered in court on 26/5/2006 afterwards application on 2/6/2006 for proceedings presented on 25/6/2006 and this application was not filed until 24/8/2006. Time starts to run as from the date the typed Judgment is delivered. In this case the delay in filing this application is about 30 days. This is a long period.
On the issue of the merit of appeal this case arises out of traffic accident where applicant suffered personal injuries. The learned Trial Magistrate dismissed the suit that medical evidence was given by a non registered medical practitioner. Counsel for applicant says that this evidence should not have been dismissed. It appears to me that this is an issue which should be argued at an appellate level with both parties having a good chance to argue their case.
For that reason and other special circumstances in this case I allow time application with costs to the Respondent. He will not be prejudiced since the judgment in lower court was in his favour. This order applies to application in Misc. Case No. 105 of 2006 which arose in similar circumstances proposed appears to be filed within next 14 days.
Dated this 16th of January, 2007.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
In presence of Mr. Mugambi
Respondent –Absent.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE