[2005] KEHC 477 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 477 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant delayed for 20 days after the ruling before applying for proceedings and did not explain this delay. Further, after receiving the proceedings, the applicant delayed for over a month before preparing and filing the notice of motion and draft grounds of appeal, again without...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 477 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Thiaya Mwirigi alias John Macharia; Respondent: Emma Wairimu Waithaka; Respondent: Eunice Wanjiku Waithaka
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Case 73 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GG Okwengu
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Delay in Filing, Vigilance in Litigation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Out of Time Delay in Filing Vigilance in Litigation

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thiaya Mwirigi alias John Macharia

Applicant

Emma Wairimu Waithaka

Respondent

Eunice Wanjiku Waithaka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has been vigilant in pursuing his right of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant delayed for 20 days after the ruling before applying for proceedings and did not explain this delay. Further, after receiving the proceedings, the applicant delayed for over a month before preparing and filing the notice of motion and draft grounds of appeal, again without explanation. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate vigilance or sufficient justification for the delay, and therefore there was no basis to exercise discretion to extend time for filing the appeal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 22nd June 2005 is rejected.