[2025] KEHC 9380 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9380 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient or reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal out of time. The explanation given was deemed casual and indicative of indolence, lacking any substantive justification for the period of default. The court relied on established principles...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9380 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Vinicent Mutuku Mwikya; Respondent: Shadrack Mutuku Nyumu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous E128 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
TM Matheka
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals Out of Time
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals Out of Time

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vinicent Mutuku Mwikya

Applicant

Shadrack Mutuku Nyumu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to stay of execution pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient or reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal out of time. The explanation given was deemed casual and indicative of indolence, lacking any substantive justification for the period of default. The court relied on established principles that the burden lies with the applicant to demonstrate excusable delay and to place relevant material before the court. In the absence of such explanation, the delay was found to be inordinate and not excusable. Consequently, the prayer for extension of time and leave to file the appeal out of time was denied. As a result, the issue of stay of execution pending appeal did not...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 15/8/2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.