[2025] KEHC 5936 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5936 (KLR)

The court found that although the delay in filing the notice of appeal was not inordinate, the Respondent/Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and excusable explanation for the delay. Simply sending the notice of appeal by email and waiting for a response without follow-up did not demonstrate diligence or sufficient effort to comply with statutory timelines. The court emphasized that extension of time is discretionary and requires a plausible explanation for delay, which was lacking in this case. Furthermore, the Respondent/Applicant did not substantiate its claim that the intended appeal had appreciable chances of success. The court also considered the prejudice to the...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5936 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Ramadhan Karisa; Respondent: Motrex Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal 45 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the Appellant/Respondent.
Judges
M Thande
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Appellate Jurisdiction, Discretionary Powers
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Appellate Jurisdiction Discretionary Powers

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Ramadhan Karisa

Appellant

Motrex Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of appeal filed out of time should be deemed properly filed within the statutory limit of 14 days.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution of the judgment should be granted pending the intended appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the delay in filing the notice of appeal was not inordinate, the Respondent/Applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and excusable explanation for the delay. Simply sending the notice of appeal by email and waiting for a response without follow-up did not demonstrate diligence or sufficient effort to comply with statutory timelines. The court emphasized that extension of time is discretionary and requires a plausible explanation for delay, which was lacking in this case. Furthermore, the Respondent/Applicant did not substantiate its claim that the intended appeal had appreciable chances of success. The court also considered the prejudice to the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the Appellant/Respondent.

Orders

  • The prayer that the notice of appeal filed out of time be deemed properly filed within the statutory limit of 14 days is declined.
  • The prayer for stay of execution is declined.