[2016] KEHC 6464 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 6464 (KLR)

The court found that although the appeal process had taken an inordinate amount of time, the delay was not attributable to the defendant but rather to the court's failure to provide certified copies of proceedings and judgment necessary for compiling the record of appeal. The defendant had complied with the stay...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 6464 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ernest Dieni Alwanyi; Plaintiff: Kiphina Shiyenyi Odhiambo; Defendant: Dancan M Machira t/a Alduchira Investment Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1457 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Stay Orders and Release Deposited Funds
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Release of Decretal Sum, Delay in Appeal, Court Orders Compliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Release of Decretal Sum Delay in Appeal Court Orders Compliance

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Dieni Alwanyi

Plaintiff

Kiphina Shiyenyi Odhiambo

Plaintiff

Dancan M Machira t/a Alduchira Investment Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Application / Ruling on Application to Discharge Stay Orders and Release Deposited Funds

  1. 1 Whether the stay orders granted on 30th May, 2013 should be discharged.
  2. 2 Whether the funds deposited in the joint account should be released to the plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal justifies the release of the decretal sum to the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the appeal process had taken an inordinate amount of time, the delay was not attributable to the defendant but rather to the court's failure to provide certified copies of proceedings and judgment necessary for compiling the record of appeal. The defendant had complied with the stay order by depositing the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account. The court held that it would be unjust to penalize the defendant for delays outside its control and that the plaintiffs' application to discharge the stay and release the funds had no merit. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' application dated 4th November, 2015 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.