[2022] KEELC 12608 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 12608 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal out of time. The applicant did not annex a copy of the ruling intended to be appealed or an affidavit from the previous advocate to support the claim of lack of notice. The court emphasized that it is the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 12608 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Wambu Waweru; Respondent: Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited; Respondent: Standard Commercial Auctioneers
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E011 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Judges
JG Kemei
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Sale by Public Auction, Loan Recovery, Dismissal of Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Appeals Out of Time Stay of Execution Sale by Public Auction Loan Recovery Dismissal of Suit

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Wambu Waweru

Applicant

Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited

Respondent

Standard Commercial Auctioneers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of sale by public auction of the suit property pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to prosecute the suit and appeal is excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal out of time. The applicant did not annex a copy of the ruling intended to be appealed or an affidavit from the previous advocate to support the claim of lack of notice. The court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the litigant to follow up on their case and ensure timely prosecution. The delay of over one year was deemed inordinate, and the applicant's reliance on the mistake of counsel was not persuasive in the absence of supporting evidence. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The application for extension of time to file appeal out of time is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st respondent.