[2025] KEHC 6052 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6052 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a plausible or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of over six months in seeking leave to appeal out of time. The applicants had previously been granted time to settle the decretal sum but failed to act, demonstrating a lack of diligence and good faith. The court held that the threshold for exercising discretion to extend time had not been met. Regarding stay of execution, the applicants did not satisfactorily address the issue of delay, nor did they demonstrate substantial loss or provide security. The court concluded that the application was an abuse of process, intended to delay execution and frustrate the respondents,...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6052 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Edward Comba Muchoki; Applicant: Samuel Kangethe Muiruri; Respondent: Elevator World Limited; Respondent: U & I Deposit Taking Microfinance Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 April 2025
Case Number
Civil Case E226 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Discretionary Powers, Delay in Filing Appeal
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Discretionary Powers Delay in Filing Appeal

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

Parties

Edward Comba Muchoki

Applicant

Samuel Kangethe Muiruri

Applicant

Elevator World Limited

Respondent

U & I Deposit Taking Microfinance Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant leave to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a plausible or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of over six months in seeking leave to appeal out of time. The applicants had previously been granted time to settle the decretal sum but failed to act, demonstrating a lack of diligence and good faith. The court held that the threshold for exercising discretion to extend time had not been met. Regarding stay of execution, the applicants did not satisfactorily address the issue of delay, nor did they demonstrate substantial loss or provide security. The court concluded that the application was an abuse of process, intended to delay execution and frustrate the respondents,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal out of time is declined.
  • Prayer for stay of execution pending appeal is declined.