Parliamentary Service Commission v Wambora & 36 others (Application 10 of 2016) [2017] KESC 19 (KLR) (24 March 2017) (Ruling)
Parliamentary Service Commission v Martin Nyaga Wambora & 36 others [2017] eKLR
Neutral citation:
[2017] KESC 19 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Application 10 of 2016
SC Wanjala & I Lenaola, SCJJ
March 24, 2017
An application for extension of time to file a petition of appeal, under Sections 21(2) and 24 (1) of the Supreme Court Act, 2012 (Cap 9A), and Rules 24 and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2011 and all other applicable provisions of the Law
Between
Parliamentary Service Commission
Appellant
and
Martin Nyaga Wambora
1st Respondent
County Assembly of Embu
2nd Respondent
Speaker of the County Assembly
3rd Respondent
The Speaker of the Senate
4th Respondent
The Senate
5th Respondent
Andrew Ireri Njeru & 31 others
6th Respondent
(Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Okwengu, Kariuki & Mohammed, JJ.A) in Civil Appeal No. 194 of 2015 delivered on 11th December, 2015 on an Appeal from the Judgment of Mwongo PJ, Korir and Odunga, JJ; delivered in HC Petition No. 7 & 8 of 2014 (Consolidated))
Ruling
Notice of motion
1.Upon perusing the application dated, 24th May, 2016, and filed on 25th May, 2016, for extension of time to file a petition of appeal and;
2.Upon reading the affidavit of Anthony Njoroge in support thereof, sworn on the 24th of May, 2016;
3.We have considered the written submissions on record for the applicant and the respondents. The applicant herein, contends that, the delay in filing the intended appeal, is not attributable to any fault or complacency on his part. The applicant instead submits that, it was the delay in obtaining the typed proceedings from the Court of Appeal, that impeded the timely preparation of the Record of Appeal.The 1st and 6th respondents, in opposition to the aforesaid application, argue that, firstly, the applicant, not having been party to the proceedings in the High Court, but only having been enjoined as an Interested Party, is not competent to file the intended appeal and secondly, that the delay is inordinate. The respondents contend, that no compelling reasons have been advanced by the applicant to warrant an extension of time; given the fact that the typed proceedings were ready on 5th April, 2016, while the application herein was only filed on 25th May, 2016; one and a half months thereafter.
4.Having Considered the application, by a unanimous decision of this Bench, we make the following Orders under Section 23(2) (b) of the Supreme Court Act, and Rule 21 of the Supreme Court Rules (2015).
| ORDERS | REASONS |
| The application dated 24th May, 2016 is hereby dismissed with costs. | No compelling reasons have been presented to the Court as a justification for the inordinate delay. |
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 24THDAY OF MARCH, 2017.S. C. WANJALA I. LENAOLA…………………….…………………. …...…...………………………………….JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURTI certify that this is a true copy of the originalREGISTRARSUPREME COURT OF KENYA