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

Bernard Njiru v Stephen Mugambi [2017] KEHC 2387 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 2387 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2387
Citation
[2017] KEHC 2387 (KLR)
Decided
2 November 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous CivilPostureApplication for extension of time to file appealCoramJOEL NGUGI
Holding

The court grants the application for extension of time to file appeal, finding that the applicant has made a strong case for extension of time due to the errors of the applicant's counsel.

Facts

The applicant, Bernard Njiru, failed to file his appeal within thirty days of the judgment in Gatundu SRMCC No. 105 of 2015. He claims the delay was due to an excusable error by his legal team.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's application for extension of time to file appeal is merited
  2. Whether the appeal has a high probability of success

Reasoning

The court considers the factors of the period of delay, the reason for the delay, the arguability of the appeal, and the importance of compliance with time limits to the particular litigation. The court finds that the delay is not inordinate and the appeal is arguable.

Outcome

The court grants the application for extension of time to file appeal.

Orders

  • To grant leave to file an appeal against the judgment in Gatundu SRMCC No. 105 of 2015
  • To stay execution of the decree in Gatundu SRMCC No. 105 of 2015 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Civil Procedure Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Mwangi v Kenya Airways
  • Phillip Keipto Chemwolo & another V Augustine Kibende
  • Banco Arabe Espanol V Bank of Uganda
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