[2021] KEELC 3954 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3954 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Although the applicant claimed the delay was due to late provision of proceedings, the court noted that the applicant only began following up on the proceedings over a year after...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3954 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Shem Ishahilidza Amadi; Respondent: Sophia Wanjiru Njoroge
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 18 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Land Disputes

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shem Ishahilidza Amadi

Applicant

Sophia Wanjiru Njoroge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated good and sufficient cause for failing to file the appeal within the prescribed time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal is excusable and not inordinate.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Although the applicant claimed the delay was due to late provision of proceedings, the court noted that the applicant only began following up on the proceedings over a year after payment, indicating a lack of diligence. Given the protracted history of the matter, which began in 2009, and the applicant's failure to act promptly, the court held that the delay was not excusable. The application for extension of time to file an appeal was therefore not merited and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for leave to file appeal out of time is dismissed with costs to the respondent.