[2025] KEHC 8260 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 8260 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the four-month delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time, did not name or provide evidence of instructing an Advocate, and failed to attach the impugned judgment or draft memorandum of appeal. The Applicant did not set out grounds of appeal to demonstrate arguability. For stay of execution, the Applicant made only general statements about the Respondent's means and failed to provide security as previously ordered by the court. The delay was excessive, and the Applicant did not comply with interim orders. The court held that the Applicant had not met the legal threshold for extension of time or stay of...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 8260 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Ngache Mukunga; Respondent: Malack Bwana
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E013 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AC Bett
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals From Subordinate Courts Security for Due Performance

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Ngache Mukunga

Applicant

Malack Bwana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should allow the application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution pending the intended appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the four-month delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time, did not name or provide evidence of instructing an Advocate, and failed to attach the impugned judgment or draft memorandum of appeal. The Applicant did not set out grounds of appeal to demonstrate arguability. For stay of execution, the Applicant made only general statements about the Respondent's means and failed to provide security as previously ordered by the court. The delay was excessive, and the Applicant did not comply with interim orders. The court held that the Applicant had not met the legal threshold for extension of time or stay of...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 28th February 2025 is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The Respondent shall have the costs of the application.