[2020] KECA 378 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 378 (KLR)

The court held that it has the jurisdiction under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to entertain applications for extension of time and, by extension, to allow withdrawal of such applications. Upon receipt of a notice of withdrawal from the applicants' advocates, and with notice to the respondents, the court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 378 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: The University of Eldoret; Applicant: The Vice-Chancellor, University of Eldoret; Respondent: Hosea Sitienei; Respondent: Professor Ezekiel Kiprop; Respondent: The Cabinet Secretary for Education Science & Technology; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 133 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal; Withdrawal of Motion
Outcome
Motion marked as withdrawn; no order as to costs.
Judges
S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Withdrawal of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Withdrawal of Application

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The University of Eldoret

Applicant

The Vice-Chancellor, University of Eldoret

Applicant

Hosea Sitienei

Respondent

Professor Ezekiel Kiprop

Respondent

The Cabinet Secretary for Education Science & Technology

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal; Withdrawal of Motion

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to withdraw their motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of such a motion under the applicable rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it has the jurisdiction under rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to entertain applications for extension of time and, by extension, to allow withdrawal of such applications. Upon receipt of a notice of withdrawal from the applicants' advocates, and with notice to the respondents, the court marked the motion as withdrawn under rule 52. No order as to costs was made. The withdrawal was procedural and did not require consideration of the merits of the original application for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Motion marked as withdrawn; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Motion dated 8th August, 2019 is marked as withdrawn under rule 52 of the rules of this Court.
  • No order as to costs.