[2021] KECA 504 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 504 (KLR)

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient explanation for the prolonged and inordinate delay of 45 months in filing the record of appeal. The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate that the request for proceedings was served on the respondents...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 504 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Shield Assurance Company Limited; Respondent: Rahab Wothaya Esiromo; Respondent: Ruoya Joseph Kamau; Respondent: Simon Maina Chege; Respondent: Raban Mwangi Chege; Respondent: David Muiru Njoroge; Respondent: Michael Gikonyo Kinyanjui; Respondent: Nobert Omanyo Wabwire
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 296 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
AK Murgor
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Delay Explanation, Prejudice to Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Delay Explanation Prejudice to Parties

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shield Assurance Company Limited

Applicant

Rahab Wothaya Esiromo

Respondent

Ruoya Joseph Kamau

Respondent

Simon Maina Chege

Respondent

Raban Mwangi Chege

Respondent

David Muiru Njoroge

Respondent

Michael Gikonyo Kinyanjui

Respondent

Nobert Omanyo Wabwire

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of Rule 82 regarding service of request for proceedings on the respondents were met.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension of time is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient explanation for the prolonged and inordinate delay of 45 months in filing the record of appeal. The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate that the request for proceedings was served on the respondents as required by Rule 82, and thus could not rely on the exclusion of time for preparation of proceedings. The explanation provided only addressed the period affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, leaving the majority of the delay unexplained. The court also noted that the information on record was inadequate to assess the chances of success of the intended appeal, and that the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 19th September 2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.