[2020] KECA 948 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 948 (KLR)

The court found that the delay in serving the notice of appeal was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained as an inadvertent error. The applicant acted expeditiously upon discovering the error by filing the application for extension of time. The intended appeal was found to be arguable and not frivolous,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 948 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: WS Insight Limited; Respondent: Adam Miller
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal Suit 246 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Serve Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Mohammed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Notice of Appeal, Appeal Procedure, Jurisdiction of Elrc
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment and Labour Extension of Time Service of Notice of Appeal Appeal Procedure Jurisdiction of Elrc

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WS Insight Limited

Applicant

Adam Miller

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Serve Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to serve the notice of appeal on the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in serving the notice of appeal was inordinate and if it was sufficiently explained.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and not frivolous.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in serving the notice of appeal was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained as an inadvertent error. The applicant acted expeditiously upon discovering the error by filing the application for extension of time. The intended appeal was found to be arguable and not frivolous, raising issues such as the jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court. The court also determined that granting the extension would not unduly prejudice the respondent, especially as an expedited hearing of the appeal would mitigate any potential prejudice. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time to serve the...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The Notice of Appeal shall be served upon the respondent within seven (7) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • The applicant shall file and serve the Memorandum and Record of Appeal within forty five (45) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.