[2011] KEHC 3684 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 3684 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing their appeal, attributing it to the failure and misleading conduct of their former advocate. The court held that the law requires an explanation for any delay, and the applicants had met this threshold. However, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 3684 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mariam Warfa; Applicant: Former Councillor Madhey; Applicant: Khadija Affey; Respondent: Maalim Ibrahim Mohamed
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 14 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Leave to file appeal out of time granted; prayers for stay of execution and injunction struck out; no order as to costs.
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Discretion of Court, Stay of Execution, Explanation of Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Discretion of Court Stay of Execution Explanation of Delay

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mariam Warfa

Applicant

Former Councillor Madhey

Applicant

Khadija Affey

Applicant

Maalim Ibrahim Mohamed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant leave to file an appeal out of time.
  3. 3 Whether a stay of execution can be granted where no appeal has been instituted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing their appeal, attributing it to the failure and misleading conduct of their former advocate. The court held that the law requires an explanation for any delay, and the applicants had met this threshold. However, the court also held that a stay of execution or injunctive relief could not be granted because no appeal had yet been instituted, as required by Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to the applicants to file their appeal out of time, but struck out the prayers for stay of execution and injunctive relief. The applicants were directed...

Court Disposition

Leave to file appeal out of time granted; prayers for stay of execution and injunction struck out; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicants to file at the High Court Nairobi their appeal against the judgment of SRM Wajir Civil Case No. 5 of 2010 within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Prayers No. 4, 5 and 6 of the Notice of Motion dated 21st February 2011 are struck out.