[2019] KEHC 12115 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 12115 (KLR)

The court found that the delay of about one month in filing the application for leave to appeal was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained by the applicant. The court held that the applicant had demonstrated apprehension that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, especially...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 12115 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Martin Muhoro; Respondent: Dancan Mutual Mukesya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 295 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance

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

Parties

Martin Muhoro

Applicant

Dancan Mutual Mukesya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file and serve the memorandum of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution of the judgment and decree should be granted pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate or sufficiently explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of about one month in filing the application for leave to appeal was not inordinate and was satisfactorily explained by the applicant. The court held that the applicant had demonstrated apprehension that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, especially since the appeal challenged both liability and quantum. The court declined to order immediate payment of half the decretal sum to the respondent due to lack of evidence of prior deposit and instead balanced the interests of both parties by granting the application on condition that half the decretal sum be deposited in court or in a joint interest-earning bank account within...

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • Leave granted to file and serve the memorandum of appeal out of time within 14 days.
  • Stay of execution granted on condition that half of the decretal sum be deposited in court or in a joint interest earning bank account of the counsels within 30 days.