[2009] KEHC 345 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 345 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant delayed in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time, the delay was not sufficiently explained and was unreasonably long. However, the court also found that the respondents, who have been in occupation of the suit property for over 12 years and were awarded a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 345 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Francis Aliaro Mapesa; Plaintiff: Patrick Achero Wamboka; Defendant: Jared Nallo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 143 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal and appeal out of time allowed; stay of execution granted; applicant to pay taxed costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Substitution of Parties, Delay and Laches, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Stay of Execution Substitution of Parties Delay and Laches Appeals Process

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Aliaro Mapesa

Plaintiff

Patrick Achero Wamboka

Plaintiff

Jared Nallo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a notice of appeal and appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution of the judgment should be granted pending the intended appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application was reasonable or inordinate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant delayed in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time, the delay was not sufficiently explained and was unreasonably long. However, the court also found that the respondents, who have been in occupation of the suit property for over 12 years and were awarded a substantial portion of the land, would not suffer prejudice if the applicant is allowed to pursue the intended appeal. The court considered that the grounds of appeal raised valid issues for determination by the Court of Appeal. Balancing the interests of justice, the court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time for filing the notice of appeal and the appeal...

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal and appeal out of time allowed; stay of execution granted; applicant to pay taxed costs.

Orders

  • Applicant to file notice of appeal within seven (7) days from the date of this ruling.
  • Record of appeal to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of filing the notice of appeal.