[2021] KECA 30 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 30 (KLR)

The court found that although the delay in filing the record and memorandum of appeal was inordinate, the applicants had provided a satisfactory explanation. The delay was caused by the negligence of their former advocates, who failed to file the appeal despite being paid and giving assurances to the applicants. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 30 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Mururu Stephen; Applicant: Nelson Wanyoike Mburu; Respondent: Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company; Interested Party: Kenya County Government Workers Union
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E189 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DK Musinga
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Filing Deadlines, Advocate Negligence, Certificate of Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Extension of Time Appeal Filing Deadlines Advocate Negligence Certificate of Delay

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

Parties

Peter Mururu Stephen

Applicant

Nelson Wanyoike Mburu

Applicant

Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company

Respondent

Kenya County Government Workers Union

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient reason for the inordinate delay in filing the record and memorandum of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file the record and memorandum of appeal out of time.
  3. 3 Whether the notice of appeal filed on 1st March 2019 should be deemed as properly filed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the delay in filing the record and memorandum of appeal was inordinate, the applicants had provided a satisfactory explanation. The delay was caused by the negligence of their former advocates, who failed to file the appeal despite being paid and giving assurances to the applicants. The applicants were not to blame for the delay. The court also noted that the intended appeal was arguable and that the respondent would not suffer prejudice if the extension was granted. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application, granting leave to file the record and memorandum of appeal out of time and deeming the notice of appeal as properly filed.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicants to file the record and memorandum of appeal out of time.
  • The record and memorandum of appeal shall be filed and served within 14 days from the date of the ruling.