[2009] KEHC 415 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 415 (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, since the respondents were already in occupation of the suit property and would not suffer prejudice, and the intended appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 415 (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 allowed; stay of execution granted; costs to applicant
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Substitution of Parties, Delay and Laches, Occupation of Land
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Stay of Execution Substitution of Parties Delay and Laches Occupation of Land

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 the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending 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, since the respondents were already in occupation of the suit property and would not suffer prejudice, and the intended appeal raised arguable issues, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time. The applicant was ordered to file the notice of appeal within seven days and the record of appeal within thirty days. The execution of the main decree was stayed, but the applicant was condemned to pay the already taxed costs due to the unreasonable delay.

Court Disposition

application for extension of time allowed; stay of execution granted; costs to applicant

Orders

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