[2025] KEELC 1079 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 1079 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had sufficiently explained the delay in filing the notice of appeal by providing medical evidence of the lead applicant's indisposition. In the interest of justice and to safeguard the applicants' right to appeal, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to file the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 1079 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ojwang’ Boniface R Awino; Defendant: Nam Oduka; Defendant: Martin Owino Oduka; Defendant: Joseph Omulo Opil; Defendant: Philip Omolo Aida; Defendant: Omondi Okoth; Defendant: Tom Juma Kenye; Defendant: Martin Juma Nam
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 578 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Judges
E Asati
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Notice of Appeal, Security for Costs, Eviction Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Notice of Appeal Security for Costs Eviction Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ojwang’ Boniface R Awino

Plaintiff

Nam Oduka

Defendant

Martin Owino Oduka

Defendant

Joseph Omulo Opil

Defendant

Philip Omolo Aida

Defendant

Omondi Okoth

Defendant

Tom Juma Kenye

Defendant

Martin Juma Nam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the court should stay execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was sufficiently explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had sufficiently explained the delay in filing the notice of appeal by providing medical evidence of the lead applicant's indisposition. In the interest of justice and to safeguard the applicants' right to appeal, the court exercised its discretion to grant leave to file the notice of appeal out of time. The court also granted a stay of execution of the judgment, conditional upon the applicants depositing Kshs. 500,000 as security in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days. Failure to comply with this condition would result in the lapse of the stay order. The court awarded the costs of the application to the plaintiff/respondent.

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicants to lodge a notice of appeal.
  • The notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days of the ruling.