[2025] KEHC 331 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 331 (KLR)

The court identified a material error in the applicant's supporting affidavit, where the deponent described himself inconsistently as Assistant Manager of the respondent instead of the applicant/objector. Recognizing that neither party had addressed this error, the court determined that proceeding to determine the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 331 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: KCB Bank (K) Limited; Respondent: Abdullahi Sheikh Muktar; Respondent: Eastmeat Supplies Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E977 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Matter listed for mention for further directions; interim stay orders extended.
Judges
JN Mulwa
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Affidavit Errors, Court Discretion
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Affidavit Errors Court Discretion

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

KCB Bank (K) Limited

Applicant

Abdullahi Sheikh Muktar

Respondent

Eastmeat Supplies Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time against the ruling delivered on 23rd June 2023.
  2. 2 Whether the court should stay execution of the ruling/order pending hearing and determination of the application and intended appeal.
  3. 3 Whether an error in the supporting affidavit affects the determination of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court identified a material error in the applicant's supporting affidavit, where the deponent described himself inconsistently as Assistant Manager of the respondent instead of the applicant/objector. Recognizing that neither party had addressed this error, the court determined that proceeding to determine the substantive application without rectification would not serve the interests of justice. Exercising its discretion under the Civil Procedure Act, the court directed that the matter be mentioned for further directions, with interim stay orders to remain in force, to allow the applicant an opportunity to correct the affidavit and ensure fair adjudication.

Court Disposition

Matter listed for mention for further directions; interim stay orders extended.

Orders

  • The matter is to be mentioned before the court for further directions on 4/2/2025.
  • Interim stay orders issued on 23/10/2023 shall remain in force pending determination of the application dated 19/10/2023.