[2019] KEHC 6348 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated willingness to provide security for the decretal amount, thereby safeguarding the respondent from loss other than delay. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, noting that the right to appeal is fundamental and the applicant should be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 6348 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Erick Francis Wafula; Respondent: Sheban Obongita Were
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 19 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed with conditions
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Enlargement of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Erick Francis Wafula
Applicant
Sheban Obongita Were
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted enlargement of time to file an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether stay of execution pending appeal should be granted.
- 3 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient security for the decretal amount.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated willingness to provide security for the decretal amount, thereby safeguarding the respondent from loss other than delay. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, noting that the right to appeal is fundamental and the applicant should be allowed to seek a second opinion on the trial court's verdict. The delay, while not fully explained, was not so inordinate as to deny the applicant the opportunity to appeal, especially given the offer of security. The court therefore allowed the application for enlargement of time and granted a stay of execution on condition that the decretal amount be deposited as security.
Court Disposition
application allowed with conditions
Orders
- The Motion dated 14th February 2019 is allowed; applicant is granted 28 days to lodge an appeal against the judgment in Mumias SPMCCC No. 165 of 2015.
- There shall be stay of execution of the said judgment pending appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2019
ERICK FRANCIS WAFULA.............. APPLICANT
AND
SHEBAN OBONGITA WERE....... RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Motion dated 14th February 2019 seeks enlargement of time within which to file an appeal from a judgment given in Mumias SPMCCC No. 165 of 2015. The said judgment was delivered on 14th November 2018. The motion was lodged herein on 14th February 2019. That would mean the Motion was lodged more than sixty days after the lapse of the time allowed to file appeal.
2. The affidavit in support of the application was sworn by the advocate for the applicant. He avers that he was instructed after the time for lodging the appeal had expired. He says that the applicant stood to suffer loss should execution ensue. He says that the applicant was willing to offer security as court may deem fit, including depositing the decretal amount in a joint account in the names of the advocates on record for the parties.
3. The application is opposed. The affidavit in reply to the application was sworn by the advocate for the respondent. His position is that the delay in filing the appeal in time has not been explained. He says that he notified the applicant’s counsel of the judgment by a letter dated 17th January 2019, only for the respondent to move the court on 14th February2019, some twenty-eight days thereafter. He points out that the proposed appeal has no chances of success.
4. I note that the applicant has offered to deposit the decretal amount as security. That way the respondent would suffer no loss, save for delay in having the money in his hands before the matter is disposed of, should it be disposed if in his favour. I trust that the applicant is entitled to appeal, and to get a second opinion on the verdict of the trial court.
5. I shall accordingly exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and dispose of the said Motion in the following terms:
(a) That the Motion dated 14th February 2018 is allowed, so that applicant is granted 28 days to lodge an appeal against the judgment in Mumias SPMCCC No. 165 of 2015;
(b) That there shall be stay of execution of the said judgment pending appeal;
(c) That the applicant shall within fourteen days deposit the total decretal amount in court or in a joint interest earning account in the names of advocates on record for him and the respondent;
(d) That in default of (c) above execution shall ensue without any further reference to the court;
(e) That the matter shall be mentioned after twenty-eight days for compliance on a date to be given at the delivery of this ruling: and
(f) Thatcosts shall be in the cause.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE