[2023] KEHC 26214 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant failed to adequately explain the delay in filing the appeal, the right to be heard is fundamental and should only be denied as a last resort. The court emphasized the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules and Article 159 of the Constitution, which require courts...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 26214 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: David Mutuma Gichuru; Respondent: Mary Karwitha; Respondent: Evans Mutethia; Respondent: Hellen Kinanu M’rutere (Suing as Legal Representative to the Estate of Bartholomew Kathurima Rutere)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Case E071 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- Application allowed with conditions.
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Fatal Accident Claims, Judgment Enforcement
- 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
David Mutuma Gichuru
Appellant
Mary Karwitha
Respondent
Evans Mutethia
Respondent
Hellen Kinanu M’rutere (Suing as Legal Representative to the Estate of Bartholomew Kathurima Rutere)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
- 3 Whether denying leave would unjustly deprive the applicant of the right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant failed to adequately explain the delay in filing the appeal, the right to be heard is fundamental and should only be denied as a last resort. The court emphasized the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules and Article 159 of the Constitution, which require courts to facilitate substantive justice. However, the court also recognized the respondents' right to enjoy the fruits of their judgment. Balancing these interests, the court granted leave to appeal out of time and ordered a stay of execution, conditional upon the applicant depositing half of the decretal sum within 14 days. Failure to comply would result in the lapse of the stay. The...
Court Disposition
Application allowed with conditions.
Orders
- Stay of execution of the judgment in Githongo MCC No. 25 of 2022 granted pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal, conditional upon the applicant depositing half of the decretal sum within 14 days, failing which the stay lapses.
- Applicant to file and serve the intended appeal within 45 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Gichuru v Karwitha & 2 others (Miscellaneous Civil Case E071 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 26214 (KLR) (30 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 26214 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Miscellaneous Civil Case E071 of 2023
TW Cherere, J
November 30, 2023
Between
David Mutuma Gichuru
Appellant
and
Mary Karwitha
1st Respondent
Evans Mutethia
2nd Respondent
Hellen Kinanu M’rutere (Suing as Legal Representative to the Estate of Bartholomew Kathurima Rutere)
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. By judgment dated March 31, 2023, the court in Githongo MCC No. 25 Of 2022 entered judgment for the Respondents for KES. 2,210,876/- being damages for suffered by Bartholomew Kathurima Rutere who was fatally injured after he was knocked down by Applicant’s M/V KCS 172G on 08th November, 2020.
2. By a notice of motion dated and filed on July 7, 2023, Applicant seeks leave to appeal out of time on the grounds that he is aggrieved by the judgment dated March 31, 2023, he intends to file an appeal which has high chances of success, his goods have been proclaimed and that he expected his insurer Invesco Assurance to file an appeal on his behalf but they did not.
3. Respondents opposed the application by way of a replying affidavit sworn by the 1st Respondent on the ground that an application dated July 7, 2023 which is similar to this one was heard and dismissed by the trial court on October 23, 2023 and that Applicant has moved the court with inordinate delay and further that having failed to defend the suit, Applicant cannot be said to have an arguable appeal.
Analysis and determination 4. I have considered the application in the light of the affidavits on record. There is no communication between the Applicant and his insurer after the judgment and Applicant having slept on his rights has not explained the delay in filing the appeal to the satisfaction of the court.
5. However, it should be the court’s last resort to deny a party a chance to be heard. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of disputes. Judicial authority to do justice to all, vested on this court by article 159 of the Constitution cannot be said and be seen to be exercised if the courts were to deny a party a chance to be heard on merit.
6. The foregoing notwithstanding, there is no denying that Respondent has judgment in his favor which has remained unsatisfied since March 31, 2023 through the fault of the Respondent.
7. Consequently, the notice of motion dated and filed on July 7, 2023 is allowed in the following terms:1)There shall be a stay of execution of the judgment in Githongo MCC No. 25 of 2022 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal upon the Applicant depositing with the court ½ of the decretal sum within 14 days from today’s date in default of which the stay will lapse2)Applicant shall file and serve the intended appeal within 45 days from today’s date3)Costs shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal
DELIVERED IN MERU THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistants - Kinoti/MuneneFor Applicant - Mr. Karatu for Kuria Karatu & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondents - Mr. Kaimenyi for Kaimenyi Kithinji & Co. Advocates