Cinetine Enterprises Limited v Electrical Marketing (Wholesale) Limited (Civil Application E324 of 2021) [2022] KECA 375 (KLR) (25 February 2022) (Ruling)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 375
- Citation
- [2022] KECA 375 (KLR)
- Decided
- 25 February 2022
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureApplication for extension of time to appealCoramOLE KANTAI
Holding
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Facts
Cinetine Enterprises Limited sought to appeal a judgment set aside by the Environment and Land Court of Kenya, which found the auction process irregular and against the law. The applicant claimed delay due to its advocates' failure to file a notice of appeal.
Issues
- Whether to grant leave to appeal and set a time for lodging a notice of appeal
- Whether the applicant's delay in filing the appeal is excusable
Reasoning
The court found the applicant's delay in appealing the judgment was not excusable and did not meet the principles set out in Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others.
Outcome
Application dismissed
Orders
- Dismissal of the application for extension of time to appeal
Authorities cited
Cases cited (2)
- Fakir Mohamed v Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others Civil Application No. 332 of 2004
- City Chemist (Nbi) & Another v Oriental Commercial Bank Limited Civil Application No. NAI. 302 of 2008
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.
Loading judgment…