Thomas Kiplagat Bett v Hasham Lalji Properties Limited & 3 others

Thomas Kiplagat Bett v Hasham Lalji Properties Limited & 3 others

The applicant failed to prove that the delay was sufficiently explained. The alleged notice of appeal and record of appeal were not evidenced on the record, and the claimed illness, lack of notice, and need for time to consider appeal were unsupported. The delay of about one month for the notice and nearly two years...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KECA 1674 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Kiplagat Bett; 1st Respondent: Hasham Lalji Properties Limited; 2nd Respondent: Sigilani Limited; 3rd Respondent: Ismail Hasham Lalji; 4th Respondent: Lapikeyet Trust (Kenya) Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E621 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal / Ruling on Application Before Single Judge in Chambers
Outcome
Application dismissed
Judges
["M Ngugi"]
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Late Filing of Notice of Appeal, Late Filing of Record of Appeal, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Inordinate Delay, Prejudice, Service and Filing Requirements
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appellate Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Late Filing of Notice of Appeal Late Filing of Record of Appeal Exercise of Judicial Discretion Inordinate Delay +2 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Kiplagat Bett

Applicant

Hasham Lalji Properties Limited

1st Respondent

Sigilani Limited

2nd Respondent

Ismail Hasham Lalji

3rd Respondent

Lapikeyet Trust (Kenya) Limited

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Extension of Time to File Notice and Record of Appeal / Ruling on Application Before Single Judge in Chambers

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had laid a sufficient basis for extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal and record of appeal was inordinate and adequately explained.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated arguable appeal and absence of prejudice to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the delay was sufficiently explained. The alleged notice of appeal and record of appeal were not evidenced on the record, and the claimed illness, lack of notice, and need for time to consider appeal were unsupported. The delay of about one month for the notice and nearly two years for the record was inordinate, so the court declined to exercise discretion under Rule 4.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 5th November 2021 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.