[2024] KEELC 13360 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 13360 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the ruling delivered on 12.3.2024 and that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was not inordinate. The court emphasized that it is not required at this stage to consider whether the intended appeal is arguable, but rather to ensure that the applicant is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 13360 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Shepherd Catering Limited; Defendant: Nairobi Holdings Limited; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar of Titles; Defendant: Steel Son Limited; Plaintiff: Steel Son Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 359 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Notice of Appeal, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Out of Time Notice of Appeal Procedural Fairness

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

Shepherd Catering Limited

Plaintiff

Nairobi Holdings Limited

Defendant

Chief Land Registrar of Titles

Defendant

Steel Son Limited

Defendant

Steel Son Limited

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against the court's ruling delivered on 12.3.2024.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the ruling delivered on 12.3.2024 and that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was not inordinate. The court emphasized that it is not required at this stage to consider whether the intended appeal is arguable, but rather to ensure that the applicant is afforded an opportunity to pursue her appeal. Since no stay was sought and the matter already had a hearing date, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time to appeal, with no orders as to costs.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The application dated 3.10.2024 is allowed; the applicant is granted leave to lodge an appeal out of time against the ruling delivered on 12.3.2024.
  • No orders as to costs.