[2021] KEHC 3731 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 3731 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely the inaction of the Insurance Company and their subsequent discovery of the attachment of their property. The court held that the applicants should be given an opportunity to ventilate their appeal on merit, and that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 3731 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: James Kimuyu Ngeruro; Applicant: Wilson Kipchoge Chumba; Respondent: James Boit Simatwa (suing as personal representative of the Estate of Kiso Violet Macheso and next friend of Ruth Chepkemoi Boit)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 12 & 13 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
LK Kimaru
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals Out of Time, Exercise of Discretion, Stay of Execution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals Out of Time Exercise of Discretion Stay of Execution

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kimuyu Ngeruro

Applicant

Wilson Kipchoge Chumba

Applicant

James Boit Simatwa (suing as personal representative of the Estate of Kiso Violet Macheso and next friend of Ruth Chepkemoi Boit)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend time for the applicants to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justified by the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether granting the extension would prejudice the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, namely the inaction of the Insurance Company and their subsequent discovery of the attachment of their property. The court held that the applicants should be given an opportunity to ventilate their appeal on merit, and that the respondent would not be prejudiced as the court would make orders to secure the respondent's interests. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time, subject to the applicants paying specified sums to the respondent within thirty days and the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Applicants to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal within fourteen (14) days of the ruling date.
  • Applicants in Misc. Application No. 13/2021 to pay the respondent KES 750,000 within thirty (30) days.