[2025] KEHC 6089 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6089 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of about five months in bringing the application for leave to appeal out of time, as neither the applicant nor relevant staff swore an affidavit detailing the reasons for the delay. The court held that an advocate's evidence from the bar is insufficient to discharge this burden. The delay was deemed unreasonable and prejudicial to the respondent. Regarding stay of execution, the court held that the applicant did not meet the requirements under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, as the application was not made without unreasonable delay and the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6089 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Paul Oyile Amollo; Respondent: Venasiu Mwilaria Nkaricha
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E279 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
JM Nang'ea
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Costs, Delay in Filing, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Security for Costs Delay in Filing Exercise of Judicial Discretion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Paul Oyile Amollo

Applicant

Venasiu Mwilaria Nkaricha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for enlargement of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has satisfied the legal requirements for grant of stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of about five months in bringing the application for leave to appeal out of time, as neither the applicant nor relevant staff swore an affidavit detailing the reasons for the delay. The court held that an advocate's evidence from the bar is insufficient to discharge this burden. The delay was deemed unreasonable and prejudicial to the respondent. Regarding stay of execution, the court held that the applicant did not meet the requirements under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, as the application was not made without unreasonable delay and the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.