[2025] KEHC 9602 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9602 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, as the delay was occasioned by the insurance approval process, which was outside the applicant's control and not due to indolence. The court noted that the delay was not inordinate and that the applicant had acted promptly upon receiving instructions. The respondents did not file any substantive opposition or submissions to challenge the applicant's explanation. The court further held that the interests of justice favored granting leave to appeal out of time and that the applicant's offer to furnish security for the decretal amount adequately protected the respondents from prejudice....

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9602 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bovian Machuki Maina; Respondent: Francis Munyao Mwagiri; Respondent: Tabitha Moraa Mokay; Respondent: Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Decree
Outcome
Application allowed; leave to appeal out of time granted; stay of execution granted on terms.
Judges
CM Kariuki
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Delay and Excuse, Security for Decretal Amount
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals Process Delay and Excuse Security for Decretal Amount

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bovian Machuki Maina

Applicant

Francis Munyao Mwagiri

Respondent

Tabitha Moraa Mokay

Respondent

Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution of the trial court decree should be granted pending appeal.
  3. 3 What security, if any, should be furnished for the decretal amount.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, as the delay was occasioned by the insurance approval process, which was outside the applicant's control and not due to indolence. The court noted that the delay was not inordinate and that the applicant had acted promptly upon receiving instructions. The respondents did not file any substantive opposition or submissions to challenge the applicant's explanation. The court further held that the interests of justice favored granting leave to appeal out of time and that the applicant's offer to furnish security for the decretal amount adequately protected the respondents from prejudice....

Court Disposition

Application allowed; leave to appeal out of time granted; stay of execution granted on terms.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal out of time is granted; memorandum of appeal to be filed and served within 7 days.
  • Half of the decretal amount to be paid to the decree holder within 30 days; the other half to be secured by deposit in court within 30 days from the date of the ruling.