THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA v. PROF. PETER ANYANG’-NYONG’O AND 10 OTHERS

Case Number	APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2009 (ARISING FROM REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2006)
Summary	Upon the conclusion of Reference No.1 of 2006, the Respondents were awarded costs which were taxed on 19th December 2008. In January 2009, the Respondents Advocate demanded settlement of the decretal sum but the same was still pending in April 2009 when the Applicant filed this application seeking an extension of time to file a Reference contesting the Taxing Officer’s decision. This was ninety days after the Bill of costs was taxed. The Applicant gave several reasons for the delay including: the Christmas vacation and consultations with the other government branches. The Respondents opposed the application asking the court to examine whether the Applicant had sufficiently and in good faith explained the delay.
Respondent	Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o and ten others
Complainant	The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya
Date filed	April 3, 2009
Countries	Kenya
Keyword	Costs , Extension of time , Sufficient reason
Treaty Article	Rule 4

Verdict	The Court’s discretion is exercisable on the basis of evidence and sound legal principle; and that the duty of placing the necessary evidence before the Court to enable it exercise its discretion is on the applicant. In order to justify a Court in extending the time, there must be some material upon which the Court can exercise its discretion. It must be discernible that the application is made in good faith and the reasons plausible and candid to pass the test of sufficiency. There was, inordinate, unreasonable and wanton delay and the explanations offered were insufficient, less than candid and, in places, highly improbable. The Applicant in this case did not discharge this duty, the application lacked merit and was dismissed.
PDF document	Download the decision as PDF
Date delivered	October 16, 2009
Quorum