https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6061

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6061

The Court reinstated the appeal on the basis that the delay in typed proceedings was attributable to the Judiciary, not the Applicant, and accepted the Applicant’s averment that Ksh 1,500,000 had been deposited as security and later released to the Respondent. Reinstatement was therefore allowed, with costs to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 6061 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Douglas Mwangi Macharia; Respondent: Veronicah Nyakerario Onditi & Nicholas Onsare Ombombi (Suing as the Representatives of the Estate of Kefa Onditi Mose)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E1218 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Reinstate Appeal
Outcome
Appeal reinstated conditionally on the Court’s acceptance of the asserted security deposit; Respondent awarded costs. If no security deposit was made, the application would be dismissed with costs.
Judges
["LP Kassan"]
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Appeal, Typed Proceedings, Security for Decretal Sum, Costs, Court Docket Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Reinstatement of Appeal Typed Proceedings Security for Decretal Sum Costs Court Docket Management

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Mwangi Macharia

Appellant

Veronicah Nyakerario Onditi & Nicholas Onsare Ombombi (Suing as the Representatives of the Estate of Kefa Onditi Mose)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Reinstate Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be reinstated despite the absence of typed proceedings and the lower court file.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged deposit of Ksh 1,500,000 as security supported reinstatement.
  3. 3 What order on costs should follow.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court reinstated the appeal on the basis that the delay in typed proceedings was attributable to the Judiciary, not the Applicant, and accepted the Applicant’s averment that Ksh 1,500,000 had been deposited as security and later released to the Respondent. Reinstatement was therefore allowed, with costs to the Respondent; if the security deposit had not in fact been made, the application would stand dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal reinstated conditionally on the Court’s acceptance of the asserted security deposit; Respondent awarded costs. If no security deposit was made, the application would be dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal reinstated upon reliance on the Applicant’s averment that Ksh 1,500,000 was deposited as security and later released to the Respondent.
  • Respondent awarded costs.