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

Taj Mall Limited v Taj Millenium Management Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) E189 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1934 (KLR) (20 December 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KECA 1934 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
1934
Citation
[2024] KECA 1934 (KLR)
Decided
20 December 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil Appeal (Application)PostureApplication for extension of time to serve the notice of appeal and for filing the record of appealCoramM NGUGI, JA
Holding

The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent as the applicant has not proffered any reason for the delay in excess of five months.

Facts

The applicant, Taj Mall Limited, was aggrieved by the judgment of the Environment and Land Court dated 28th October 2021 in ELC No. 721 of 2012. The applicant instructed its lawyers to lodge a notice of appeal, but due to inadvertence, the notice of appeal was not served within the statutory seven days. The applicant also faced a delay in obtaining the proceedings and judgment, which resulted in a certificate of delay dated 28th September 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court should grant the applicant extension of time to serve the notice of appeal and file the record of appeal
  2. Whether the applicant's appeal is competent and worth entertaining by the Court

Reasoning

The Court found that the applicant did not serve the notice of appeal within the statutory seven days and did not file the record of appeal within the statutory sixty days. The applicant attributed the delay to failure to obtain certificated copies of the proceedings and inadvertence on the part of its advocates. The Court found the delay to be inordinate and dismissed the application.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent
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