[2019] KEHC 5944 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 5944 (KLR)

The court found that the delay of about two months in filing the application for extension of time was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The applicant's reasons, including misunderstanding with his advocate and waiting for certified copies of the judgment, were not sufficient. However, in deference to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 5944 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Moses Gituma Impwi; Respondent: Beatrice Nkatha M’Ipwi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 19 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Judgment
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; application for stay of judgment refused.
Judges
F Gikonyo
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Judgment, Succession Matters, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Extension of Time Stay of Judgment Succession Matters Appeals Process

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Gituma Impwi

Applicant

Beatrice Nkatha M’Ipwi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the notice of appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of about two months in filing the application for extension of time was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The applicant's reasons, including misunderstanding with his advocate and waiting for certified copies of the judgment, were not sufficient. However, in deference to the applicant's right of appeal, the court reluctantly exercised its discretion to grant an extension of time to file the notice of appeal within 14 days. The court declined to grant a stay of judgment, noting that the respondents, as heirs, were entitled to immediate realization of the judgment and would suffer prejudice if a stay was granted.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; application for stay of judgment refused.

Orders

  • Extension of time to file notice of appeal granted; applicant to file within 14 days.
  • Application for stay of judgment is declined.