[2025] KEHC 10216 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10216 (KLR)

The court found that while the delay of over two years in filing the appeal was inordinate, the applicant attributed it to her advocate's failure to inform her of the ruling. The court acknowledged that mistakes of counsel do not automatically excuse a litigant, who must also show diligence in following up on their case. However, in the interest of justice and considering the constitutional right of access to justice, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to file the appeal out of time, subject to strict compliance with set timelines and payment of throw away costs to the respondent. The court emphasized that the justice system should not lock out parties seeking to ventilate...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10216 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Grace Nafula Shitanda; Respondent: James Muyekho Shitanda
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 88 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Judges
S Mbungi
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Delay and Laches, Access to Justice
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Delay and Laches Access to Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Nafula Shitanda

Applicant

James Muyekho Shitanda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  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 and if it can be excused.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to follow up with her advocate disentitles her to the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the delay of over two years in filing the appeal was inordinate, the applicant attributed it to her advocate's failure to inform her of the ruling. The court acknowledged that mistakes of counsel do not automatically excuse a litigant, who must also show diligence in following up on their case. However, in the interest of justice and considering the constitutional right of access to justice, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to file the appeal out of time, subject to strict compliance with set timelines and payment of throw away costs to the respondent. The court emphasized that the justice system should not lock out parties seeking to ventilate...

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to file the appeal out of time within 14 days.
  • The applicant shall file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal within fourteen (14) days of the ruling.