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

Sunwood Enterprises v Mulatya (Appeal E015 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1198 (KLR) (9 May 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEELRC 1198 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1198
Citation
[2024] KEELRC 1198 (KLR)
Decided
9 May 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from a subordinate court to the High CourtCoramM. MBARŨ
Holding

The application dated 18 March 2024 is struck out, and the appeal is dismissed without leave.

Facts

Sunwood Enterprises filed an application seeking leave to appeal out of time, while the respondent claimed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the Christmas festivities and the applicant's failure to take any action after securing instructions.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
  2. Whether the reasons given for the delay in filing the appeal are valid

Reasoning

The court held that the delay in filing the appeal was not justified and that the applicant had not provided sufficient cause for the delay. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate good cause to justify for time extension to file an appeal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed without leave

Orders

  • Application dated 18 March 2024 is struck out
  • Award of costs to the respondent in the amount of Ksh.20, 000

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (3)
  • Omar Shurie v Marian Rushe Yafar Civil Application No. 107 of 2020
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir v IEBC & 7 others
  • Omwoyo v African Highlands and Produce Co. Ltd
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