SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Swafia Abdalla (aka Swaleh Mahdi) & another v Temo & 6 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E004 of 2021) [2022] KECA 136 (KLR) (18 February 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KECA 136 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
136
Citation
[2022] KECA 136 (KLR)
Decided
18 February 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil Appeal (Application)PostureApplication for extension of time to move the court to strike out Notice and Record of AppealCoramJW LESSIT
Holding

The application is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th Respondents.

Facts

The seven Respondents were granted leave to file a notice of appeal and record of appeal within 10 and 30 days respectively. Four of the seven Respondents filed a joint notice of appeal but did not name the remaining three Respondents. The Applicants wish to have the filed Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal struck out.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have explained the reason for the delay of over twenty months in bringing the application.
  2. Whether the Respondents will suffer great prejudice if the application is allowed.
  3. Whether the application has been brought without undue delay.
  4. Whether public interest should be a consideration for extending time.

Reasoning

The court found that the Applicants did not satisfy the required threshold for the exercise of discretion in their favour due to the length of the delay involved and the Applicants' explanation for the delay.

Outcome

Dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to move the court to strike out Notice and Record of Appeal dismissed

Remedies

  • Costs to the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th Respondents
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case