[2024] KEELC 5893 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 5893 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time. The only explanation advanced was the illness and hospitalization of counsel, but the evidence showed counsel was discharged on the same day as the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 5893 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Pancreas Nyaidho Omollo; Respondent: John Alego Odoyo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Delay and Excusable Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals From Subordinate Courts Delay and Excusable Delay

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pancreas Nyaidho Omollo

Applicant

John Alego Odoyo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the lower court's judgment pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application was excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal out of time. The only explanation advanced was the illness and hospitalization of counsel, but the evidence showed counsel was discharged on the same day as the judgment, and the application was filed more than five months later. The court held that the delay was inexcusable and not satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the application failed to meet the legal threshold for extension of time or grant of stay of execution. The decree had already been partially satisfied, and the application was deemed an afterthought. The court exercised...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 7th March 2023 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.