[2024] KEHC 16020 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 16020 (KLR)

The court found that a stay of execution was not warranted because the suit in the lower court was dismissed with costs, no costs had been assessed, and no execution process had begun. Therefore, there was nothing to stay. However, the court exercised its discretion to grant the applicants leave to file an appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 16020 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: David Ebitonyi Kwanzwi; Appellant: Martin Nyongesa Wasike; Respondent: David Bwoyi; Respondent: Benard Wasike; Respondent: Robert Wangila; Respondent: Benson Wafula; Respondent: Thomas Wafula; Respondent: Christine Bwoyi; Respondent: Jostine Malaba; Respondent: Damaris Wafula
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E139 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed; leave to appeal out of time granted.
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Out of Time Appeal Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ebitonyi Kwanzwi

Appellant

Martin Nyongesa Wasike

Appellant

David Bwoyi

Respondent

Benard Wasike

Respondent

Robert Wangila

Respondent

Benson Wafula

Respondent

Thomas Wafula

Respondent

Christine Bwoyi

Respondent

Jostine Malaba

Respondent

Damaris Wafula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution can be granted where the suit was dismissed with costs and no execution process has commenced.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a stay of execution was not warranted because the suit in the lower court was dismissed with costs, no costs had been assessed, and no execution process had begun. Therefore, there was nothing to stay. However, the court exercised its discretion to grant the applicants leave to file an appeal out of time, noting their expressed desire to appeal and the interests of justice. The court directed that the current appeal file be closed and a proper appeal file be opened once the applicants file their appeal within 14 days from the date of the ruling. Costs were ordered to abide by the outcome of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution dismissed; leave to appeal out of time granted.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Applicants are granted leave to file an appeal out of time within 14 days from the date of the ruling.