[2025] KEHC 9647 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9647 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and truthful explanation for the inordinate delay of over two and a half years in seeking leave to file an appeal out of time. The applicant's claim of having filed an appeal within time was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the court's electronic filing records, which showed that the cited appeal number belonged to other parties. The court held that the applicant was under an obligation to provide evidence of electronic filing, which she failed to do. The court further held that the correct procedure was to seek leave before filing an appeal out of time, not to file first and seek to regularize later. The applicant's...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9647 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Josephine Achieng Onyango; Respondent: Vitalis Asugo Ogolla
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Siaya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application E013 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
DK Kemei
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Stay of Execution, Inordinate Delay, Judicial Discretion, Filing Requirements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeals From Subordinate Courts Stay of Execution Inordinate Delay Judicial Discretion Filing Requirements

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephine Achieng Onyango

Applicant

Vitalis Asugo Ogolla

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 provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to file a memorandum of appeal out of time against the judgment of the lower court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and truthful explanation for the inordinate delay of over two and a half years in seeking leave to file an appeal out of time. The applicant's claim of having filed an appeal within time was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the court's electronic filing records, which showed that the cited appeal number belonged to other parties. The court held that the applicant was under an obligation to provide evidence of electronic filing, which she failed to do. The court further held that the correct procedure was to seek leave before filing an appeal out of time, not to file first and seek to regularize later. The applicant's...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 23/5/2023 and filed on 16/4/2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The Deputy Registrar is directed to initiate investigations into the allocation of Appeal No. E48/2022 to the applicant.