[2012] KEHC 1005 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant's explanation for delay was not entirely excusable, the interests of substantive justice warranted granting her an opportunity to appeal. The court held that whether the lapses were attributable to the applicant or her advocate was immaterial in the broader context of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1005 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Josephine Moraa Cosmas; Respondent: John Bosco Mboga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 104 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- Application allowed with conditions.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Appeal Timelines, Security for Costs
- 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
Josephine Moraa Cosmas
Applicant
John Bosco Mboga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for failure to file an appeal within the prescribed time.
- 2 Whether a stay of execution of the decree should be granted pending appeal.
- 3 Whether the applicant should be required to deposit security for costs as a condition for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant's explanation for delay was not entirely excusable, the interests of substantive justice warranted granting her an opportunity to appeal. The court held that whether the lapses were attributable to the applicant or her advocate was immaterial in the broader context of ensuring justice. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for leave to appeal out of time and granted a stay of execution, subject to the applicant depositing security for costs. The court emphasized that the stay would lapse if the applicant failed to prosecute the appeal actively or to comply with the conditions set by the court.
Court Disposition
Application allowed with conditions.
Orders
- The applicant shall file her appeal within 30 days from the date of this ruling, failing which the leave lapses automatically.
- Execution of the decree in Kisii CMCC No. 553 of 2009 is stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The stay order lapses automatically at the expiry of one year if the appellant fails to take active steps to prosecute the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court of Kisii
Miscellaneous Application 104 of 2011 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-align:justify; text-indent:-17. 85pt; line-height:200%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
JOSEPHINE MORAA COSMAS....................... APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
JOHN BOSCO MBOGA ................................ RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant seeks an order for stay of execution of the decree in Kisii CMCC No. 553 of 2009. She also seeks leave of this court to appeal out of time. The decision in the lower court was rendered on 30th June 2011. Her application is premised on the grounds that she was dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court but being illiterate did not appreciate and take advantage of her right of appeal within time. She alleges that the appeal has a high chance of success for reason that the lower court did not take evidence from key witnesses.
In her supporting affidavit, the applicant avers that she did not appreciate the import of the lower court judgment until she was served with a notice of eviction from the suit plot stating that her advocates on record then did not properly advise her.
The application is opposed. In his replying affidavit, the respondent avers that the application is founded on untruths as the applicant was well aware of the outcome of the case having filed an application for stay and review soon after the judgment was delivered. Further he has averred that the applicant had ample opportunity in the lower court to present her evidence and that any lapses thereon attributable to her advocate then cannot form a basis for allowing the present application.
Parties filed and exchanged submission which I have carefully considered.
Section 79Gof the Civil Procedure Act provides that an appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the date of the decree or order appealed against provided however, that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
The applicant has endeavoured to explain why she failed to appeal within time. Whether the lapses are attributable to herself or her advocate is immaterial. Whereas the lapses are inexcusable I, however take a broader view of substantive justice for the litigant and grant her an opportunity to prosecute her case on merit in the interests of justice. I therefore allow the application in the following terms;
1. The applicant shall file her appeal within 30 days from
the date of this ruling failing which the leave lapses automatically.
2. The execution of the decree in Kisii CMCC No. 553 of 2009 is stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The stay order shall lapse automatically at the expiry of one year if the appellant fails to take active steps to prosecute the appeal.
3. The stay order is conditional upon the applicant depositing One Hundred Thousand Shillings (Kshs.100,000/=) into court as security for costs within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
4. The main suit be set down for hearing on priority basis upon compliance with the Rules.
5. Costs of this application will be borne by the applicant.
It is so ordered.
Ruling dated, signedand delivered at Kisii this 23rd day of August, 2012.
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE
In the presence of :
Edwin Mongare Court clerk
.............................Counsel for the plaintiffs/Applicants
.............................Counsel for the defendants/respondents
R. LAGAT-KORIR
JUDGE