[2025] KEHC 7920 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7920 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to factors beyond its control, specifically internal disruptions at its insurer. The delay, though notable, was not inordinate and did not warrant denial of the right to appeal. The intended appeal was found to be arguable. On the issue of stay of execution, the court held that the applicant had demonstrated a likelihood of substantial loss if execution proceeded, particularly as the respondent did not provide evidence of financial capacity to refund the decretal sum. However, the applicant's assertion of readiness to provide a bank guarantee was undermined by the...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7920 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Great Rift Shuttle; Respondent: Alex Mayobe
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous E016 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Application allowed in part; leave to appeal out of time granted; stay of execution granted on condition of deposit of security; costs in the cause.
Judges
S Mbungi
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Security for Decretal Sum, Substantial Loss, Extension of Time, Appeal Rights
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Out of Time Security for Decretal Sum Substantial Loss Extension of Time Appeal Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Rift Shuttle

Applicant

Alex Mayobe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to factors beyond its control, specifically internal disruptions at its insurer. The delay, though notable, was not inordinate and did not warrant denial of the right to appeal. The intended appeal was found to be arguable. On the issue of stay of execution, the court held that the applicant had demonstrated a likelihood of substantial loss if execution proceeded, particularly as the respondent did not provide evidence of financial capacity to refund the decretal sum. However, the applicant's assertion of readiness to provide a bank guarantee was undermined by the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; leave to appeal out of time granted; stay of execution granted on condition of deposit of security; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Applicant to file and serve memorandum of appeal within seven days from the date of ruling.
  • Stay of execution of the judgment/decree in Butali PMCC No. 211 of 2018 granted pending appeal, conditional upon applicant depositing Ksh. 400,000 in a joint interest-earning account in the names of both parties' advocates within sixty days.