[2015] KEHC 7156 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 7156 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the express condition set in the ruling of 20th February 2014, which required the appeal to be heard within the year 2014. The appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure, as there was no evidence of efforts to prosecute the appeal after the lower court file was reconstructed or to seek an extension or variation of the court's orders. The court emphasized that orders are made to be complied with and that the appellant's inaction constituted a breach. Consequently, the respondent's application for the release of the KShs.2 million deposited as security was meritorious and allowed.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 7156 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Gateway Insurance Co. Ltd.; Respondent: Edward Kinuthia Gitonye
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 March 2015
Case Number
Civil Appeal 445 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Release of Deposited Security
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Appeal Timelines, Non Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Appeal Timelines Non Compliance With Court Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gateway Insurance Co. Ltd.

Appellant

Edward Kinuthia Gitonye

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Release of Deposited Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to the release of KShs.2 million deposited in court as security for due performance of the decree.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's failure to prosecute the appeal within the stipulated time justifies the release of the deposited sum to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with the court's order regarding the hearing of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to comply with the express condition set in the ruling of 20th February 2014, which required the appeal to be heard within the year 2014. The appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure, as there was no evidence of efforts to prosecute the appeal after the lower court file was reconstructed or to seek an extension or variation of the court's orders. The court emphasized that orders are made to be complied with and that the appellant's inaction constituted a breach. Consequently, the respondent's application for the release of the KShs.2 million deposited as security was meritorious and allowed.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The sum of KShs.2 million deposited in court as security for due performance of the decree is to be released to the respondent.