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

Odundo v Mainya (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6391 (KLR) (30 September 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEELC 6391 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
6391
Citation
[2024] KEELC 6391 (KLR)
Decided
30 September 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureAppeal Out of TimeCoramGMA ONGONDO, Odunga, Shah
Holding

The court dismissed the application with costs, finding that the applicant's delay in filing the appeal was not excusable and that the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.

Facts

The applicant, Paul Keta Odundo, was sued by the respondent, Kennedy Otieno Mainya, in Mbita Principal Magistrate's Court for trespassing onto the suit parcel of land. The trial court ordered him to pay Kshs.500,000. Odundo was arrested and detained, and his family was evicted from the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time.
  2. Whether the applicant's intended appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

Reasoning

The court considered the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Procedure Rules, noting that the applicant's delay in filing the appeal was not excusable and that the appeal had no reasonable chance of success. The court also cited case law on the discretion to extend time and the factors to consider in such cases.

Outcome

Dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Cases cited (2)
  • Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority v Jeremiah Kimigho Mwakio & 3 others
  • Njoroge v Kimani
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