[2018] KECA 598 (KLR)

[2018] KECA 598 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the application for extension of time. The only step taken to obtain proceedings before the ruling of 10th March 2017 was a letter dated 3rd December 2012, with no evidence of further...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KECA 598 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Simon Muriithi Maina (suing on his behalf and on behalf of 33 others); Respondent: Anthony Nzuki; Respondent: Emmanuel Kakula; Respondent: Divisional Integrated Development Programmes Company Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 May 2018
Case Number
Civil Application 226 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Interlocutory Orders, Specific Performance, Injunctions, Appeals Process
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Interlocutory Orders Specific Performance Injunctions Appeals Process

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Muriithi Maina (suing on his behalf and on behalf of 33 others)

Applicant

Anthony Nzuki

Respondent

Emmanuel Kakula

Respondent

Divisional Integrated Development Programmes Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for filing the record of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal raises arguable grounds or is frivolous.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the application for extension of time. The only step taken to obtain proceedings before the ruling of 10th March 2017 was a letter dated 3rd December 2012, with no evidence of further follow-up until September 2017. The court also noted that the intended appeal was against an interlocutory order and that the main suit had been pending for over ten years without prosecution, which could have resolved the underlying issues. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate that the intended appeal was not frivolous or disclose any grounds of appeal. In the absence...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents.