Peter Mwene Watua v G4s Security Services [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Kericho
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
A.N. Ongeri
Judgment Date
October 02, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Discover the key highlights and implications of the Peter Mwene Watua v G4s Security Services [2020] eKLR case. This summary offers insights into legal precedents and rulings beneficial for understanding employment law.

Case Brief: Peter Mwene Watua v G4s Security Services [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Peter Mwene Watua v. G4S Security Services
- Case Number: Misc. P & A. Application No. 25 of 2018
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Kericho
- Date Delivered: October 2, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): A.N. Ongeri
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case is whether the Applicant, Peter Mwene Watua, should be granted leave to appeal out of time against the judgment delivered by Hon. B. Limo in Kericho CMCC.206 of 2015 on March 14, 2018.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Applicant, Peter Mwene Watua, filed a Notice of Motion on June 20, 2018, seeking leave to appeal out of time from a judgment that he claims has adversely affected him. The judgment in question was delivered on March 14, 2018, and the Applicant learned about it on May 24, 2018. He argues that he is aggrieved by the judgment and wishes to appeal it. The Respondent, G4S Security Services, filed grounds of opposition on October 12, 2018, claiming that the Applicant has already executed the judgment and that he is indolent, having delayed for three months after the judgment was delivered.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the filing of the Notice of Motion on June 20, 2018. The Respondent opposed the application by filing grounds of opposition. The court considered written submissions from both parties before rendering its ruling. The court had to determine whether the Applicant had provided sufficient grounds for the delay in filing the appeal and whether the application should be granted.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, which stipulates that appeals from subordinate courts must be filed within thirty days of the judgment. It allows for appeals to be admitted out of time if the appellant demonstrates good and sufficient cause for the delay.
- Case Law: The court considered the principles established in the case of *First American Bank of Kenya Ltd v. Gulab P Shah & 2 Others* (2002) which outlines factors to consider when deciding whether to extend time for filing an appeal. Additionally, it referenced *Shade Manufacturers & Hotels Ltd v. Serah Mweru Mutuu & 4 Others* (2005), which discusses the necessity for a respondent to file a replying affidavit if they wish to contest the facts presented by the applicant.
- Application: The court found that the Respondent did not file a replying affidavit to counter the Applicant's claims, which weakened their opposition. The court acknowledged the good and sufficient reason provided by the Applicant for the delay, as the supporting affidavit was unchallenged. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Applicant, allowing him thirty days to file the intended appeal.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court granted the Applicant, Peter Mwene Watua, leave to appeal out of time, allowing him thirty days from the date of the ruling to file his appeal. The decision underscores the court's discretion to permit late appeals when sufficient justification is presented, emphasizing the importance of fair access to justice.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case, as the ruling was made by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The case of Peter Mwene Watua v. G4S Security Services resulted in the High Court granting the Applicant leave to appeal out of time, highlighting the court's willingness to accommodate parties seeking justice despite procedural delays. This ruling reinforces the principles surrounding the timeliness of appeals and the necessity for parties to substantiate their claims adequately.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Peter-Mwene-Watua-v-G4s-Security-Services-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1584_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries