[2025] KEHC 4749 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 4749 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicants failed to explain the four-month delay in filing the application for leave to appeal and stay of execution. The absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay undermined the urgency and credibility of the application. Furthermore, the Applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 4749 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Kabiru; Applicant: Rose Muhonja; Respondent: George Ohuru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous E034 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Delay in Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Delay in Application

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Kabiru

Applicant

Rose Muhonja

Applicant

George Ohuru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to appeal the judgment delivered on 19th September 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E5369 of 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for granting a stay of execution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants failed to explain the four-month delay in filing the application for leave to appeal and stay of execution. The absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay undermined the urgency and credibility of the application. Furthermore, the Applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate or substantiate the claim of substantial loss, as required by law. The court emphasized that the principle of substantial loss is central to the grant of a stay of execution and must be supported by clear evidence. In the absence of both an adequate explanation for the delay and evidence of substantial loss, the court concluded that the application lacked merit and dismissed...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The prayer for leave to appeal the judgment delivered on 19th September 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E5369 of 2022 is disallowed.
  • The prayer for a stay of execution is disallowed.