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

Gathuma & another v Hinga (Civil Appeal (Application) 259 of 2020) [2022] KECA 530 (KLR) (28 April 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KECA 530 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
530
Citation
[2022] KECA 530 (KLR)
Decided
28 April 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil Appeal (Application)PostureApplication for extension of time to apply to strike out Record of AppealCoramK M'INOTI
Holding

The Court allows the application for extension of time and extends the time to apply to strike out the record of appeal, deeming it as filed within time.

Facts

The respondent, Anne Mumbi Hinga, filed a suit against the applicants, William Mwangi Gathuma and Janet Wanjiku Mwangi, in the Environment and Land Court. The suit was dismissed, and the respondent subsequently filed an appeal. The applicants discovered the appeal and filed an application to strike it out, but were out of time. The applicants also claimed the appeal was filed out of time without leave.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants can extend the time to apply to strike out the record of appeal.
  2. Whether the record of appeal should be struck out if the extension of time is granted.

Reasoning

The Court exercised its discretion to extend the time for the applicants to apply to strike out the record of appeal due to the peculiar circumstances and the explanation provided by the applicants.

Outcome

The application for extension of time is granted.

Orders

  • Extend time to apply to strike out the record of appeal.
  • Deem the application to strike out the record of appeal as filed within time.

Remedies

  • Extension of time to apply to strike out the record of appeal.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Fakir Mohamed v. Joseph Mugambi & 2 Others, CA No. Nai. 332 of 2004
  • Sila Mutiso v. Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi, Civil Application No. Nai. 255 of 1997
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