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

Dhanjal Brothers Limited v Dhanjal & another (Both sued as the administrator of the Estate of Jaswant Singh Dhanjal) (Civil Application E003 of 2022) [2024] KECA 71 (KLR) (7 February 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KECA 71 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
71
Citation
[2024] KECA 71 (KLR)
Decided
7 February 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureApplication for enlargement of time and leave to file the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal out of timeCoramGV ODUNGA
Holding

The court grants the application and extends the time for filing the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal to the next 14 days and 60 days respectively.

Facts

The applicant sought an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal due to a delay in receiving the ruling from the High Court, which was not communicated until December 2021.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant an extension of time for filing the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal
  2. Whether the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal was inordinate and justifiable

Reasoning

The court exercised its discretion to grant the extension, considering the delay was not inordinate and the applicant's explanation for the delay.

Outcome

The application is granted.

Orders

  • Extend time for filing the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal to the next 14 days and 60 days respectively

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • Utalii Transport Company Limited & 3 Others v NIC Bank Limited & Anor [2014] eKLR
  • Philip Chemwolo & Another v Augustine Kubende [1986] KLR 492; (1982-88) KAR 103
  • Waljee's (Uganda) Ltd v Ramji Punjabhai Bugerere Tea Estates Ltd [1971] EA 188
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