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

Chengo v Odida (Civil Appeal (Application) E571 of 2021) [2022] KECA 615 (KLR) (28 April 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KECA 615 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
615
Citation
[2022] KECA 615 (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 appeal out of timeCoramK M'INOTI
Holding

The Court allows the application for extension of time, deeming the notice of appeal filed on time.

Facts

The applicant, Martin Chengo, was restrained from trespassing or constructing on LR No. 209/20594, Nairobi South B by the Environment and Land Court (Komingoi, J.) on June 11, 2020. The court ordered Chengo to remove his structures and pay Kshs. 200,000 as general damages for trespass. Chengo filed a notice of appeal, but the respondent, Vitalis Odida, took contempt of court proceedings against him, finding him guilty and ordering him to remove his structures within 30 days or face a fine or imprisonment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's notice of appeal was filed out of time
  2. Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file the appeal

Reasoning

The Court considers the delay of 9 days in filing the notice of appeal neither inordinate nor prejudicial to the respondent. The Court grants the extension to allow Chengo the opportunity to fully agitate his dispute.

Outcome

The Court allows the application for extension of time.

Orders

  • The notice of appeal dated 9th March 2022 is deemed filed on time.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Imperial Bank Ltd (In Receivership) & Another v. Alnashir Popat & 18 Others [2018] eKLR
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