Ravas Paul Kyalo Mutisya v Kenya National Highways Authority & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
O.A. Angote
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Ravas Paul Kyalo Mutisya v Kenya National Highways Authority & another [2020] eKLR, detailing key legal insights and the court's ruling. Perfect for legal professionals and students seeking to understand this pivotal case.

Case Brief: Ravas Paul Kyalo Mutisya v Kenya National Highways Authority & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Ravas Paul Kyalo Mutisya v. Kenya National Highways Authority & National Land Commission
- Case Number: ELC. MISC. APPLN. NO. 70 OF 2019
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Date Delivered: 9th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): O.A. Angote
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue is whether the Applicant, Ravas Paul Kyalo Mutisya, should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against a ruling delivered on 31st October 2019 in Kitui CMCC No. 12 of 2019.

3. Facts of the Case:
Ravas Paul Kyalo Mutisya (the Applicant) sought to appeal a ruling made against him by the Chief Magistrate's Court. The ruling was delivered in his absence, and the Applicant contended that he was not properly notified of the ruling date due to a change of advocates from M/s Mochere & Co. Advocates to M/s Momanyi and Co. Advocates. The notice of change was filed on 29th October 2019, and the deadline for filing the appeal was 30th November 2019. The Applicant filed his application for leave to appeal out of time on 5th December 2019, resulting in a delay of four days.

4. Procedural History:
The Applicant filed an application seeking leave to appeal out of time, which was opposed by the 1st Respondent, who argued that the application was frivolous and lacked sufficient cause. The court heard the application through written submissions. The Applicant's counsel argued that the delay was due to the lack of notification regarding the ruling date, while the 1st Respondent's counsel contended that there was no certified copy of the decree or order appealed against, which was required for the appeal process.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act 2012, which allows for an extension of time to file an appeal if the appellant can demonstrate good and sufficient cause for the delay.
- Case Law: The court referenced several cases, including *Itute Ingu & Anor vs. Isumael Mwakavi Mwendwa (1994) eKLR*, which emphasized that inadvertence must be properly explained for an extension to be granted. In *Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Rose Hellen Wangare Mwangi Civil Application No. NAI 255 of 1997 (ur)*, the court established criteria for granting extensions, including the length of delay and the reasons for it. Additionally, *Mwangi vs. Kenya Airways Ltd [2003] KLR* provided factors to be considered when deciding on extensions, such as the arguability of the appeal and potential prejudice to the respondent.
- Application: The court found that the Applicant's delay of four days was not inordinate and was sufficiently explained by the change of advocates. The court acknowledged that the previous advocate was present during the ruling, and the new advocate sought to come on record shortly after the ruling was delivered. The court ultimately determined that the Applicant's reasons aligned with the criteria set forth in the applicable statutes and case law.

6. Conclusion:
The court granted the Applicant leave to file his Memorandum of Appeal out of time, allowing him to do so within fourteen days of the ruling date. The court noted that the delay was minor and adequately justified.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The court's decision to grant the Applicant leave to appeal out of time underscores the importance of considering the context of delays in legal proceedings, particularly when they are adequately explained. The ruling highlights the court's discretion in managing procedural timelines and the necessity for fairness in the judicial process. The case serves as a reference for future applications regarding extensions of time to appeal, emphasizing that minor delays can be excused under reasonable circumstances.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Ravas-Paul-Kyalo-Mutisya-v-Kenya-National-Highways-Authority--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2016_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries