Robins Nyangau Mosongo & another v Ngoitoi Leiyan & another [2020] KEELC 357 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to extend time for a defendant who waited 520 days without explanation, ruling that extension of time is a discretionary favour, not a right.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether to extend time for compliance with the orders of 25th September, 2018
Extension refused; the applicant was aware of the orders, delayed 520 days without reasonable explanation, and showed bad faith and laches amounting to abuse of process
The court reviewed the record and found the 1st Defendant, through counsel and in person, was aware of the orders of 25th September 2018, which expressly permitted the Plaintiffs to take a judgment date upon non-compliance. The Defendant filed the application only 520 days later upon learning judgment was scheduled. Applying the Salat principles, he failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the delay or entitlement to the equitable discretion, having already been granted an opportunity to be heard.
Whether the Notice of Appointment of Advocates of WANAM & SALE Advocates should be struck out
The Preliminary Objection was dismissed; the error in the Notice was not fatal and could be cured by amendment
The Plaintiffs objected to the firm of Wanam Sale Advocates being on record for the 1st Defendant. The court, invoking Article 159 of the Constitution and the overriding objective of just determination, held that the defect was procedural and curable by amendment rather than fatal, and therefore declined to strike out the Notice of Appointment.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is not a right of a party; it is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 27th February, 2020 seeking extension of time for compliance with the orders of 25th September, 2018 and stay of proceedings is dismissed
- 2.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the Notice of Appointment of Advocates of WANAM & SALE Advocates is dismissed
- 3.Costs of the application to the Plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Robins Nyangau Mosongo & another v Ngoitoi Leiyan & another [2020] KEELC 357 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/357/eng@2020-12-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.