8.The application is opposed vide a replying affidavit of the petitioner/respondent.
9.That the applicant has not placed any sufficient justification for extension of time to file an appeal. That indeed the applicant has no arguable appeal to warrant extension of time. That in the event extension of time is granted, the applicant be compelled to provide security for costs of the Appeal in the sum of Kshs.5,000,000.
10.That the Human Resource Manager has already demonstrated disobedience of the Court by failing to ensure all benefits due to the petitioner are accorded to him. That the application lacks merit and it be dismissed.
11.The parties filed written submissions which the Court has carefully considered together with the deposition by the parties.
12.The Respondent’s prayer for extension of time for filing the Notice of Appeal out of time is premised on Section 7 of the Appellate jurisdiction Act which provides that:-
13.The Court is guided by the provisions of Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Rules in exercise of its discretion to extend time which provides:-
14.In Leo Sila Mutiso -vs- Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi Nairobi CA No. 255 of 1997 which was affirmed in Kenya Breweries Limited -vs- Lawrence Ndutu & 6000 Others  eKLR the Court held:-
15.In the present matter, judgment was delivered on 13th April, 2023. The application was filed on 31/5/2023. Ordinarily, an appeal ought to be filed within 30 days. The delay in filing in the present case is by about 17 days. This delay cannot be said to be inordinate.
16.The crux of the matter is whether there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The applicant states that the delay was occasioned by the need to seek legal opinion from another firm of advocates different from the advocates on record due to existence of a conflicting judgment from a Court of equal jurisdiction as the present one.
17.Seeking an opinion is prudent but by itself not a bar to a party desirous of filing an appeal to file a notice of appeal within the prescribed time. If the Court has to approve this as a justifiable reason for not adhering to a mandatory rule of practice, then it would open floodgates to every litigant with a different opinion from that contained in the judgment not to note the intended appeal timeously while seeking 3rd party opinions elsewhere. To me, this is not a sufficient and justifiable reason to hinder a party intending to file an appeal to file a notice of appeal and take other necessary steps to obtain certified copies of the proceedings and judgment of the trial Court.
18.In the present matter, there is no indication from the deposition by the applicant that any steps have been taken to secure certified copies of proceedings and judgment pending the filing of the intended appeal.
19.Furthermore, the decision of the Court relates to the date of retirement of the claimant being a person with disability. The issue being whether the applicant was right to retire the claimant at 60 years of age, instead of at 65 years of age. Time for the implementation of the decision of Court is of essence and the petitioner stands to suffer immense prejudice if the order sought herein is granted by the Court.
20.The applicant in their own words desire the appeal Court to settle the issue which constituted the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Court having been advised that there is a conflicting decision on the point in a judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction. This desire by the applicant is noble but cannot be pursued at the expense of the petitioner who is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment by being retired at age 65 instead of 60 years.
21.The Court finds that the application lacks bona-fides and merit and is dismissed with costs.