[1999] KECA 173 (KLR)

[1999] KECA 173 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the record of appeal, particularly as there were other litigation lawyers available in the advocate's chambers who could have acted in the absence of Mr. Madara. Additionally, the applicants did not explain the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] KECA 173 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Twiga Chemical; Applicant: Lucas Indeche Imbila; Respondent: Joram Kivairu
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 195 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Court Discretion

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Twiga Chemical

Applicant

Lucas Indeche Imbila

Applicant

Joram Kivairu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient cause for the extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal after the previous extension was adequately explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the record of appeal, particularly as there were other litigation lawyers available in the advocate's chambers who could have acted in the absence of Mr. Madara. Additionally, the applicants did not explain the further delay between the record being ready and the filing of the present application. The court concluded that, in all the circumstances, this was not a fit and proper case to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants. Consequently, the application for extension of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal is dismissed.