[2018] KEHC 8058 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8058 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant did not provide a strong explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, the delay of about 45 days was not inordinate given the circumstances, including the absence of the applicant's counsel at the time of judgment and the logistical challenges of prosecuting matters in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 8058 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Board of Trustee Anglican Church of Kenya; Respondent: Nasibo Ibrahim Abdi; Respondent: Abdi Saam Duba & Another; Respondent: Benson Boru Jarso
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Marsabit
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Case 4, 5 & 6 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Quantum of Damages, Road Traffic Accident, Consent on Liability
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Quantum of Damages Road Traffic Accident Consent on Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Board of Trustee Anglican Church of Kenya

Applicant

Nasibo Ibrahim Abdi

Respondent

Abdi Saam Duba & Another

Respondent

Benson Boru Jarso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time against the judgment of the trial court.
  2. 2 Whether an order for stay of execution of the judgment and decree should be granted pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application was inordinate or excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant did not provide a strong explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, the delay of about 45 days was not inordinate given the circumstances, including the absence of the applicant's counsel at the time of judgment and the logistical challenges of prosecuting matters in Marsabit. The court held that the applicant was entitled to pursue its appeal on the issue of quantum, as liability had already been settled by consent. However, to balance the interests of both parties, the court required the applicant to deposit part of the decretal sum in a joint interest earning account as a condition for stay of execution. The application was therefore...

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • Applicant to file and serve its memorandum of appeal within thirty (30) days.
  • Applicant to deposit Ksh 1,000,000 in respect of PMCC No. 36/2016, Ksh 1,000,000 in respect of PMCC No. 27/2016, and Ksh 1,500,000 in respect of PMCC No. 37/2016 in a joint interest earning account of both counsels within sixty (60) days (total Ksh 3,500,000).