[2025] KEHC 7247 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7247 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient and persuasive reasons for the delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time, as no affidavit evidence was provided to substantiate the claim that the ruling notice was sent to the wrong email. The court emphasized that extension of time is a discretionary remedy requiring a satisfactory explanation for delay, which was not met in this case. Consequently, the applicant was not deserving of the court's discretion to extend time. As the primary prayer failed, the request for stay of proceedings was rendered moot and was also dismissed. The application was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7247 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: MED; Respondent: AAD
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Case Number
Matrimonial Cause E002 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Cause / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion for Extension of Time and Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
A. Ong’injo
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Proceedings, Matrimonial Disputes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Stay of Proceedings Matrimonial Disputes

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MED

Applicant

AAD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Cause / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion for Extension of Time and Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions requisite for granting leave to file appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has made out a case for staying of proceedings pending hearing of the intended appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient and persuasive reasons for the delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time, as no affidavit evidence was provided to substantiate the claim that the ruling notice was sent to the wrong email. The court emphasized that extension of time is a discretionary remedy requiring a satisfactory explanation for delay, which was not met in this case. Consequently, the applicant was not deserving of the court's discretion to extend time. As the primary prayer failed, the request for stay of proceedings was rendered moot and was also dismissed. The application was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The amended notice of motion dated 27th September 2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The matter shall be mentioned on 27/3/2025 for further directions as to its hearing.