[2025] KEHC 7828 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7828 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a plausible or sufficient explanation for the four-month delay in filing the appeal, as the same firm of advocates remained on record and no evidence was provided regarding the alleged departure of the advocate. The applicant did not demonstrate that he gave instructions to appeal or that his advocate failed to act on them. The explanation for delay was vague and unsupported. Furthermore, the intended appeal did not raise arguable points of law or fact, and no copy of the trial court's judgment was attached to assist the court in assessing the merits. As the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for extension of time under Section...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7828 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David Ngugi Njoroge; Respondent: Lawrence Mwenja Mwaniki
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 May 2025
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E034 of 2025
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
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Discretion of Court, Substantial Loss, Security for Decretal Sum
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals From Subordinate Courts Discretion of Court Substantial Loss Security for Decretal Sum

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ngugi Njoroge

Applicant

Lawrence Mwenja Mwaniki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated good and sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the reasons advanced for the delay in filing the appeal are plausible and sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a plausible or sufficient explanation for the four-month delay in filing the appeal, as the same firm of advocates remained on record and no evidence was provided regarding the alleged departure of the advocate. The applicant did not demonstrate that he gave instructions to appeal or that his advocate failed to act on them. The explanation for delay was vague and unsupported. Furthermore, the intended appeal did not raise arguable points of law or fact, and no copy of the trial court's judgment was attached to assist the court in assessing the merits. As the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for extension of time under Section...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 8th March 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.