[2025] KEHC 5595 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5595 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had satisfactorily explained the delay of approximately 90 days in filing the appeal, including evidence of an attempt to file electronically and the annexing of an intended memorandum of appeal. The delay was not inordinate, and the appeal was found to be arguable. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5595 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Angatia Wanjiku; Respondent: Atandi David; Respondent: Bernard Kiprono Korir
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bomet
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 May 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed.
Judges
JK Ng'arng'ar
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Discretion of Court, Delay in Filing, Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Discretion of Court Delay in Filing Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Angatia Wanjiku

Applicant

Atandi David

Respondent

Bernard Kiprono Korir

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant the applicant leave to file his appeal out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had satisfactorily explained the delay of approximately 90 days in filing the appeal, including evidence of an attempt to file electronically and the annexing of an intended memorandum of appeal. The delay was not inordinate, and the appeal was found to be arguable. The court applied the principles from Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and relevant case law, emphasizing that extension of time is discretionary and must be based on good and sufficient cause. The absence of prejudice to the respondents, who did not oppose the application, and the applicant's plausible explanation for the delay justified the grant of leave to appeal out of time. The...

Court Disposition

Application allowed.

Orders

  • Time for filing the appeal from the judgment/decree in Bomet CMCC No E118 of 2022 is extended.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the cause.