[2021] KEHC 5623 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 5623 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the consent orders for 19 months and did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the delay, particularly regarding the alleged financial constraints caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The court held that the applicant did not demonstrate good and sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 5623 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Orokise Co-operative Savings and Credit Society; Respondent: Salome Wanjiru Getari
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 459 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Consent Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals From Subordinate Courts Consent Orders

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

Parties

Orokise Co-operative Savings and Credit Society

Applicant

Salome Wanjiru Getari

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to comply with consent orders and file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement of previous court orders and stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in compliance was justified and if granting the orders would prejudice the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the consent orders for 19 months and did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the delay, particularly regarding the alleged financial constraints caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The court held that the applicant did not demonstrate good and sufficient cause for the delay as required by Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The court also noted that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and granting the orders would prejudice the respondent by further delaying the enjoyment of the judgment. Consequently, the application for extension of time and related reliefs was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's motion dated 22/6/2019 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.