[2025] KEHC 8686 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8686 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant acted promptly upon learning of the judgment, and the delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate nor occasioned by the applicant's fault. The respondent did not controvert the applicant's assertion regarding lack of notice of judgment delivery. The draft memorandum of appeal raised triable issues, and the intended appeal would not prejudice the respondent. The court held that the applicant satisfied the conditions for extension of time and for stay of execution: substantial loss would result if execution proceeded, the application was made without unreasonable delay, and the applicant expressed willingness to provide security. However, the court...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8686 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Habil Nanjendo Bushuru; Respondent: Maxwel Amusala Charles
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 June 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E032 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed with conditions.
Judges
AC Bett
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Monetary Decree, Discretion of Court
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time to Appeal Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Monetary Decree Discretion of Court

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Habil Nanjendo Bushuru

Applicant

Maxwel Amusala Charles

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. 3 What constitutes adequate security for due performance of a monetary decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant acted promptly upon learning of the judgment, and the delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate nor occasioned by the applicant's fault. The respondent did not controvert the applicant's assertion regarding lack of notice of judgment delivery. The draft memorandum of appeal raised triable issues, and the intended appeal would not prejudice the respondent. The court held that the applicant satisfied the conditions for extension of time and for stay of execution: substantial loss would result if execution proceeded, the application was made without unreasonable delay, and the applicant expressed willingness to provide security. However, the court...

Court Disposition

Application allowed with conditions.

Orders

  • Time to file the appeal is extended; appeal to be filed within 14 days.
  • Stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Kakamega CMCC No. 420 of 2013 granted on condition that Kshs. 1,200,000 is deposited in a joint interest-earning account in the names of both parties' law firms within 60 days.