[2001] KECA 62 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 62 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant delayed by 32 days in bringing the application for extension of time, the delay was not inordinate given the applicant's promptness in lodging the earlier appeal and its demonstrated intention to pursue the appeal. The court exercised its unfettered discretion under rule 4...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 62 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Standard Chartered Bank Ltd; Respondent: Florence Mueni Kyalo
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 194 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed; extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Court of Appeal Rules, Delay in Filing, Striking Out of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Court of Appeal Rules Delay in Filing Striking Out of Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Chartered Bank Ltd

Applicant

Florence Mueni Kyalo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay of 32 days in bringing the application is inordinate and justifies denial of extension of time.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to grant the extension.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant delayed by 32 days in bringing the application for extension of time, the delay was not inordinate given the applicant's promptness in lodging the earlier appeal and its demonstrated intention to pursue the appeal. The court exercised its unfettered discretion under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, holding that the circumstances did not warrant denying the applicant an opportunity to pursue its intended appeal. The absence of a detailed explanation in the affidavit was noted, but the overall conduct of the applicant and the nature of the delay justified granting the extension sought.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; extension of time granted.

Orders

  • Time to file and serve a fresh Notice of Appeal extended by 7 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Time to lodge and serve a record of appeal extended by a further 30 days from the date of the ruling.