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

DSM v MWG (Civil Application E075 of 2021) [2024] KECA 229 (KLR) (8 March 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KECA 229 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
229
Citation
[2024] KECA 229 (KLR)
Decided
8 March 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureApplication for extension of time to file and serve Notice of AppealCoramAK MURGOR, JA
Holding

The court extends the time for the applicant to file and serve the Notice of Appeal.

Facts

The applicant, DSM, sought an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa delivered on August 31, 2021. The applicant claimed that she was not notified of the judgment's delivery date and that she was not present when the judgment was delivered.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was notified of the judgment's delivery date
  2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable

Reasoning

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the judgment's delivery date on August 31, 2021, and that this lack of notice is a sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal.

Outcome

The court grants the application for extension of time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal.

Orders

  • The notice of appeal lodged on August 31, 2023, be and is hereby deemed as properly filed and served on the respondent.

Remedies

  • Extension of time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Cases cited (1)
  • Kenya Airports Authority v Kahia & another (Civil Application E079 of 2023) [2023] KECA 1549 (KLR)
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