[2020] KEHC 409 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 409 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had made genuine efforts to comply with the orders by preparing the cheques, albeit belatedly. The delay of approximately three weeks was not considered unreasonable, and there was no evidence that the applicant intended to disregard the court's authority. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 409 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: David Wachira; Respondent: Josphine Kambua Katiwa & Festus Munyoki Katiwa (Suing as the administrators of the estate of the late Mwaniki Katiwa)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 688 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Compliance With Court Orders
Outcome
application granted
Judges
SJ Chitembwe
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals Process Compliance With Court Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Wachira

Appellant

Josphine Kambua Katiwa & Festus Munyoki Katiwa (Suing as the administrators of the estate of the late Mwaniki Katiwa)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Extend Time for Compliance With Court Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to comply with the court orders issued on 29th May, 2020.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in complying with the court orders was reasonable and justified.
  3. 3 Whether granting the extension would prejudice the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had made genuine efforts to comply with the orders by preparing the cheques, albeit belatedly. The delay of approximately three weeks was not considered unreasonable, and there was no evidence that the applicant intended to disregard the court's authority. The court held that the respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice apart from a delay in accessing the judgment sum, which would remain secured pending appeal. In the interests of justice and given the applicant's partial compliance, the court exercised its discretion to grant the extension sought, subject to strict timelines for filing the memorandum of appeal and depositing the decretal sum.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The applicant to file and serve the memorandum of appeal within fourteen (14) days hereof.
  • The decretal sum to be deposited either in a joint account or in court within fourteen (14) days hereof.