[2002] KEHC 109 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 109 (KLR)

The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any special circumstances or serious questions of law that would justify granting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the application was filed almost seven months after the decision without adequate explanation for the delay. The applicants...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KEHC 109 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph B. Orengo; Applicant: Teresa Nyangweso Keng’otore; Respondent: The Public Trustee; Interested Party: Joyce Nyaboke Manoti
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1402 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Probate and Administration, Delay in Filing, Compliance With Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Leave to Appeal Probate and Administration Delay in Filing Compliance With Rules

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

Joseph B. Orengo

Applicant

Teresa Nyangweso Keng’otore

Applicant

The Public Trustee

Respondent

Joyce Nyaboke Manoti

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated special circumstances or serious questions of law to justify leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal was filed within the prescribed time and in compliance with the relevant procedural rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any special circumstances or serious questions of law that would justify granting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Additionally, the application was filed almost seven months after the decision without adequate explanation for the delay. The applicants also failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, including timely service of the application for certified copies of proceedings on the respondent. The court emphasized that compliance with procedural rules is essential and that the absence of such compliance renders the application fatally defective. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.