[2023] KEHC 24195 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 24195 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicant failed to comply with the original timeline for depositing the decretal sum, the deposit was eventually made. The delay was attributed in part to the respondent's counsel's late provision of account opening forms. The court exercised its discretion to deem the deposit as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 24195 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: William Katheka; Respondent: Peter Mekenye Maina (Suing as the administrators of the legal representative of the Estate of Duke Ongeri Mekenye (Deceased))
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E719 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Extension of Time Compliance With Court Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Katheka

Appellant

Peter Mekenye Maina (Suing as the administrators of the legal representative of the Estate of Duke Ongeri Mekenye (Deceased))

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to comply with the court order for deposit of the decretal sum.
  2. 2 Whether the deposit made outside the original timeline should be deemed as compliance with the court order.
  3. 3 Whether a stay of execution pending appeal should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicant failed to comply with the original timeline for depositing the decretal sum, the deposit was eventually made. The delay was attributed in part to the respondent's counsel's late provision of account opening forms. The court exercised its discretion to deem the deposit as duly made in compliance with the order of 22nd September 2022. Consequently, the applicant was found to have satisfied the condition for stay pending appeal. The court granted the applicant 60 days to fully prosecute the appeal, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The costs of the application were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • The deposit made by the applicant is deemed as duly deposited in compliance with the order of 22nd September 2022.
  • The applicant is granted 60 days to fully execute the appeal; failure to comply will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal at the expiry of 60 days from the date of the ruling.