[2023] KEHC 19714 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 19714 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had provided a plausible explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, as they only became aware of the judgment after being served with costs by the respondent. The delay, though not fully explained for the period between learning of the judgment and filing the application, was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 19714 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenyatta Kamau Muigai Eric; Applicant: Antony Kimani Karungo; Respondent: County Government of Makueni
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E091 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Judges
TM Matheka
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals From Subordinate Courts Security for Due Performance

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenyatta Kamau Muigai Eric

Applicant

Antony Kimani Karungo

Applicant

County Government of Makueni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had provided a plausible explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, as they only became aware of the judgment after being served with costs by the respondent. The delay, though not fully explained for the period between learning of the judgment and filing the application, was not inordinate. The court further held that the applicants had satisfied the requirements for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, having demonstrated apprehension of substantial loss and readiness to provide security. The respondent's failure to file a replying affidavit or to rebut the applicants' assertions was considered as non-opposition...

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicants to lodge an appeal out of time against the judgment delivered on June 23, 2022 in Makueni CMCC No 37 of 2021.
  • An order of stay of execution of the decree emanating from the judgment delivered on June 23, 2022 in Makueni CMCC No 37 of 2021 is granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.