[2007] KECA 192 (KLR)

[2007] KECA 192 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that it could not substitute its own discretion for that of the single judge unless there was a clear misdirection or error, which was not demonstrated in this case. The delay of forty-two days in filing the notice and record of appeal was both unexplained and inordinate. The single judge...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KECA 192 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: William K. Too; Respondent: Simion K. Langat
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 6 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Reference to Full Bench From Single Judge
Outcome
Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Judges
AM Githinji
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Process Judicial 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William K. Too

Applicant

Simion K. Langat

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Reference to Full Bench From Single Judge

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal can interfere with the exercise of discretion by a single judge in refusing to extend time for filing an appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the notice and record of appeal was explained and excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that it could not substitute its own discretion for that of the single judge unless there was a clear misdirection or error, which was not demonstrated in this case. The delay of forty-two days in filing the notice and record of appeal was both unexplained and inordinate. The single judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to extend time, and there was no basis for the full bench to interfere with that decision. Accordingly, the reference was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The reference is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.