[2021] KECA 474 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 474 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants' explanation for the 66-day delay in filing the notice of appeal was unreasonable and the delay was inordinate. The cessation of movement order had been lifted before the impugned ruling was delivered, and the applicants failed to specify when they became aware of their advocates'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 474 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Timothy Simasi & Richard Wanyonyi (Suing as Administrators of the estate of the late D.A Vaughan Philpott); Respondent: Registrar of Lands, Mombasa; Respondent: Musherure Suzanne Kainembambazi (sued as the executrix of the estate of the late John Wycliffe Rutagyemwa Kazzora)
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E003 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FI Koome
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Delay and Excusable Mistake, Covid19 Impact on Procedure, Ownership of Land, Fraudulent Registration
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Delay and Excusable Mistake Covid19 Impact on Procedure Ownership of Land Fraudulent Registration

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Simasi & Richard Wanyonyi (Suing as Administrators of the estate of the late D.A Vaughan Philpott)

Applicant

Registrar of Lands, Mombasa

Respondent

Musherure Suzanne Kainembambazi (sued as the executrix of the estate of the late John Wycliffe Rutagyemwa Kazzora)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate and inexcusable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to the court's discretion to extend time for filing the notice of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' explanation for the 66-day delay in filing the notice of appeal was unreasonable and the delay was inordinate. The cessation of movement order had been lifted before the impugned ruling was delivered, and the applicants failed to specify when they became aware of their advocates' omission. The court was not persuaded that the circumstances justified the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicants. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The motion dated 21st September, 2020 and filed on 27th September, 2020 is dismissed with no order as to costs.