[2025] KEHC 7826 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7826 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants delayed for approximately nine months in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time, attributing the delay to alleged out of court negotiations. However, the applicants failed to provide any evidence of such negotiations, and the respondent refuted their existence. The court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and no plausible explanation was given. Furthermore, the intended appeal raised only matters of fact and not law, contrary to the requirements of Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act. As a result, the applicants failed to meet the threshold for extension of time. Consequently, since leave to appeal out of time was...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7826 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Millenium Plot Developers; Applicant: Patrick Nduati Njuguna; Respondent: Susan Wambui Njoroge
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E234 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals From Small Claims Court
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Appeals From Small Claims Court

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millenium Plot Developers

Applicant

Patrick Nduati Njuguna

Applicant

Susan Wambui Njoroge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal raises arguable points of law as required under Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants delayed for approximately nine months in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time, attributing the delay to alleged out of court negotiations. However, the applicants failed to provide any evidence of such negotiations, and the respondent refuted their existence. The court held that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and no plausible explanation was given. Furthermore, the intended appeal raised only matters of fact and not law, contrary to the requirements of Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act. As a result, the applicants failed to meet the threshold for extension of time. Consequently, since leave to appeal out of time was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 8th November 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.