[2016] KEHC 6275 (KLR)
The court found that the explanation for the four-month delay in filing the application was reasonable, as the applicant's previous advocate left employment and the insurer only became aware of the judgment later. No execution proceedings had commenced during this period, and the applicant would suffer irreparable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 6275 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Onesmus Macharia Kimani; Respondent: Nyevu Muzungu Bedzame also known as Maryamu Moses; Respondent: Hamisi Juma Kombo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 54 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application allowed with conditions
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Delay in Filing, Decretal Sum, Judgment Enforcement
- 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
Onesmus Macharia Kimani
Applicant
Nyevu Muzungu Bedzame also known as Maryamu Moses
Respondent
Hamisi Juma Kombo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the memorandum and record of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the decree pending appeal.
- 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application was inordinate and inexcusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the explanation for the four-month delay in filing the application was reasonable, as the applicant's previous advocate left employment and the insurer only became aware of the judgment later. No execution proceedings had commenced during this period, and the applicant would suffer irreparable damage if the decretal sum was paid and the appeal succeeded. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application for extension of time and stay of execution, conditional upon the applicant depositing the decretal sum in court or a joint account within sixty days. The applicant was also ordered to file the memorandum of appeal within fourteen days.
Court Disposition
application allowed with conditions
Orders
- The application dated 14th September 2015 is allowed.
- The applicant shall deposit the decretal sum of Kshs.502,500 in court or in a joint account of counsels for both parties within sixty days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
MISC. APP. NO. 54 OF 2015
ONESMUS MACHARIA KIMANI........................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
NYEVU MUZUNGU BEDZAME also known as
MARYAMU MOSES.................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
HAMISI JUMA KOMBO...........................................................1ST RESPONDENT
(Being an application for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal and record of appeal outoftime
against the judgment of Hon Mrs. Nzibe, RM in Malindi CMCC No. 119 of 2012 delivered on 29th April 2015)
R U L I N G
The respondent herein was involved in a road traffic accident on 30th April 2011 along the Malindi-Mombasa road. He filed Malindi CMCC No. 119 of 2012 against the appellant. The trial court delivered its judgment on 29th April 2015 and awarded the respondent Kshs.502,000/= as general damage plus costs and interests.
By a notice of motion dated 14th September 2015, the applicant seeks to stay execution of the decree as well as leave to appeal out of time. The application is supported by the affidavit of Sandra Nyakweba sworn on the same date. The respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 10th November 2015. Parties agreed to determine the application by way of written submissions.
The main contention by the applicant is that initially the firm of Menezes, Oloo and Chatur Advocates were on record on his behalf. The said advocates were corresponding with the internal advocate of the insurer (Direct-line Assurance Co. Ltd) by the name Grace Kiroko. The internal advocate left employment in July 2015 and the judgment delivered on 29th April 2015 came to the insurer knowledge in August 2015. The current advocates were instructed to file an appeal.
It is further submitted that the damages awarded are quite excessive and the applicant will suffer irreparable loss. The appeal has high chances of success as the trial court erred by holding that both defendants were jointly and severally liable. The apportionment of damage is erroneous and misguided.
On his part, counsel for the respondent submitted that the application for stay of execution was filed after a period of four (4) months. This is inordinate delay. No appeal is yet to be filed. There is no correspondence between the previous advocates and the insurer to prove that there was instructions to file an appeal. The application is only meant to frustrate the the execution and is an abuse of the court process.
Where the appellant is entitled to exercise his right to pursue an appeal, the respondent equally has the right to benefit from the fruits of his judgment. The application for stay of execution was brought after the expiry of four months. The explanation is quite reasonable. It appears no execution proceedings were done during the four month period. I do find that the explanation of the delay to file the application herein is excusable. The applicant is entitled to pursue his appeal. The proceedings of the trial court were not annexed to assist this court understand the correct background of the dispute.
The applicant will suffer irreparable damage if the decretal sum is paid to the respondent and the appeal turns out in his favour.
As indicated herein, the respondent is equally anxious to benefit from the favourable judgment. I do order that the application deposit the decretal sum of Kshs.502,500/= either in court or joint account of counsels for both parties within sixty (60) days hereof.
In the end, the application dated 14th September 2015 is allowed on the above terms. The applicant to file the Memorandum of Appeal within 14 days hereof. Costs shall follow the outcome of the appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi this 10th day of March 2016.
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE