[2024] KEELC 5546 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extension of time or for the review or variation of the stay orders. The applicant did not provide evidence of prompt action to comply with the court's directions or to secure the release of the title deed, nor did the applicant show...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 5546 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Obadiah Mwiti Laban; Appellant: Amary Rimaa M’Mugambi; Respondent: Caroline Ndumba Francis
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Review of Stay Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Extension of Time, Review of Court Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Obadiah Mwiti Laban
Appellant
Amary Rimaa M’Mugambi
Appellant
Caroline Ndumba Francis
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Review of Stay Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds for extension of time to comply with the stay of execution order.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a review or variation of the orders made on 6.6.2024 by substituting the security from a title deed to a monetary deposit.
- 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated diligence in complying with the court's directions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the extension of time or for the review or variation of the stay orders. The applicant did not provide evidence of prompt action to comply with the court's directions or to secure the release of the title deed, nor did the applicant show that the title deed was unavailable at the time the original application was made. The court emphasized that extension of time is discretionary and not automatic, and that the applicant's indolence was not justified. Consequently, the application for extension of time and review or variation of the orders was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 19.6.2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Laban & another v Francis (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5546 (KLR) (17 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5546 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2024
CK Nzili, J
July 17, 2024
Between
Obadiah Mwiti Laban
1st Appellant
Amary Rimaa M’Mugambi
2nd Appellant
and
Caroline Ndumba Francis
Respondent
Ruling
1. On 6. 6.2024, this court granted a stay of execution subject to the original title deed being deposited to the court within 14 days; otherwise, the orders would lapse.
2. By an application dated 19. 6.2024, the applicant seeks an extension of time to comply, review, or vary the orders made on 6. 6.2024, by substituting the security by way of depositing money. The reasons given are that the original title deed is held by the land registrar Meru Central, who has refused to release it under the guise of a caution registered by the respondent. The applicant blames the delay in extracting the order since the court file was not available for eight days after the delivery of the ruling until 12. 6.2024.
3. The record of the court shows that the ruling was delivered in the presence of Mr. Muthomi, advocate for the applicant, and Mr. Mawira, holding a brief for C.P Mbaabu for the respondent. So, the applicant knew of the terms and consequences of not complying with the terms of the stay orders. The applicant had, in the application dated 18. 3.2024, offered security for due performance of the decree in paragraph 9 of the supporting affidavit.
4. The applicant had not expressly stated that her title deed was inhibited or non-available. An order could have been uploaded to the system without waiting for the physical file, as this is the essence of e-filing and e-service.
5. There is no evidence that the applicant put in motion the filing of the draft immediately after the ruling was delivered and asked for the signature of the same. There is no communication uploaded that the applicant sought for the fast-tracking of the issuance of the formal order through the Deputy Registrar on time or at all.
6. In my view, therefore, I find no basis to review the earlier timelines. Extension of time is not a matter of right. See Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs Independence Electoral and Boundary Commission & 7 others (2014) eKLR. There is no basis said why the applicant was indolent. Court orders are not made in vain. The application is dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT MERU ON THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2024In presence ofC.A Kananu/MukamiApplicantMuthomi for applicantMawira for respondentHON. C K NZILIJUDGE