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

Kitere v Sadera (Civil Appeal (Application) E079 of 2023) [2024] KECA 722 (KLR) (21 June 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KECA 722 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
722
Citation
[2024] KECA 722 (KLR)
Decided
21 June 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil Appeal (Application)PostureApplication for leave to lodge an appeal out of timeCoramFA OCHIENG
Holding

The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed with costs to the respondent due to unexplained inordinate delay and the potential prejudice to third parties who acquired portions of the suit property.

Facts

The applicant, Matiko Ole Sadera, had a judgment entered against him in 2003. He became aware of the judgment in 2014 and sought to have it set aside. The trial court dismissed his application. The applicant then filed an ELC Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2019 seeking leave to appeal. The respondent, Parmatanka Ole Kitere, filed a replying affidavit stating that the decree had been executed more than 20 years ago and that the suit land had been sub-divided and sold to third parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal out of time should be granted
  2. Whether the delay in lodging the appeal was inordinate

Reasoning

The Court found the delay in lodging the appeal to be inordinate and unexplained. The judgment was already executed more than 20 years ago, and reopening the case would cause immense prejudice to third parties who acquired portions of the suit property.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed

Remedies

  • Costs to the respondent

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Leo Sila Mutiso Vs Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi [1999] Z EA 231
  • Muringa Company Ltd Vs Archdiocese of Nairobi registered trustees, Civil Application No. 190 of 2019
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