[2022] KEHC 12290 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the order to provide security for the due performance of the decree within the stipulated 45 days. The reason advanced by the applicants—that they were engaged in out of court settlement negotiations—was not accepted as a valid excuse for non-compliance. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12290 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gidraph Mungai Njuguna; Applicant: Joseph Nginyo; Respondent: Bernard Mwangi Njagi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E241 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Comply With Stay Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Security for Due Performance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gidraph Mungai Njuguna
Applicant
Joseph Nginyo
Applicant
Bernard Mwangi Njagi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Comply With Stay Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient reason for extension of time to comply with the condition for stay of execution.
- 2 Whether ongoing negotiations for out of court settlement constitute a valid ground for non-compliance with a court order.
- 3 Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time or with leave of court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the order to provide security for the due performance of the decree within the stipulated 45 days. The reason advanced by the applicants—that they were engaged in out of court settlement negotiations—was not accepted as a valid excuse for non-compliance. The court emphasized that even if negotiations were ongoing, this did not absolve the applicants from their obligation to comply with the court order. Furthermore, the court noted that the appeal may have been filed out of time without leave, further undermining the applicants' position. Consequently, the application for extension of time was found to be without merit and was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The motion dated July 13, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Njuguna & another v Njagi (Civil Appeal E241 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 12290 (KLR) (Civ) (19 August 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12290 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Appeal E241 of 2022
JK Sergon, J
August 19, 2022
Between
Gidraph Mungai Njuguna
1st Applicant
Joseph Nginyo
2nd Applicant
and
Bernard Mwangi Njagi
Respondent
Ruling
1. By an application dated Febraury 2, 2022, the applicants were on March 25, 2022, granted a temporary order of stay of execution of the decree on condition that they provide a bank guarantee as security for the due performance of the decree within 45 days.
2. The applicants did not comply with the aforesaid order within the time frame given by the court. The applicants are now before this court vide the motion dated July 13, 2022 whereof they seek for inter alia the extension of time within which the applicants can comply with the condition for the grant of the order for stay of execution issued on March 25, 2022.
3. The applicants filed the affidavit sworn by Harriet Sang in support of the motion. When served with the motion, the respondent filed the replying affidavit he swore to oppose the application.
4. It is the submission of the applicants that they were unable to comply with the stay condition within 45 days since the parties were busy negotiating for an out of court settlement which failed to bore fruits. The applicants further averred that they partially complied with the court order by filing the appeal on time.
5. In response to the applicants assertion the respondent denied that there were any ongoing negotiations to settle the matter out of court. The respondent further pointed out that the instant appeal was filed out of time without obtaining leave to do so. It is pointed out that this appeal was filed on April 19, 2022 outside the period fixed by the court.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, it is not in dispute that the applicant did not provide security for the due performance of the decree within 45 days from the date of issuance of the court order. The main reason for their failure to comply with the court order is that the parties were negotiating for an out of court settlement. The averment is denied by the respondent.
7. I find the reason given not plausible. Even if it is true that the parties were negotiating for an out of court settlement, that in itself cannot be a good reason not to comply with the court order. It is also apparent that the appeal may have been filed out of time without the applicants seeking for leave prior to filing the appeal.
8. In the end, I find the motion dated July 13, 2022 to be without merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022. …………………J K SERGONJUDGEIn the presence of:………………………………. for the applicant………………………………. for the respondent