[2023] KEHC 19594 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 19594 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for failing to file the appeal within the prescribed time was unsatisfactory. The evidence showed that the trial court had properly served a ruling notice to the applicant's advocate via the provided email address. The applicant and/or his advocate failed or chose not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 19594 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gilbert Molok; Respondent: Joseph Kihuria Njoroge (Suing as the personal representative of the Estate of Charles Ndungu Kihuria)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E032 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
A Mshila
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Service of Ruling Notice, Extension of Time, Exparte Judgment, Sufficient Cause
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Service of Ruling Notice Extension of Time Exparte Judgment Sufficient Cause

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gilbert Molok

Applicant

Joseph Kihuria Njoroge (Suing as the personal representative of the Estate of Charles Ndungu Kihuria)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant leave to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for failing to file the appeal within the prescribed time was unsatisfactory. The evidence showed that the trial court had properly served a ruling notice to the applicant's advocate via the provided email address. The applicant and/or his advocate failed or chose not to act upon the notice. The court held that the reasons advanced did not amount to good and sufficient cause as required under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. Consequently, the application for enlargement of time to file an appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for enlargement of time to file an appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.