Otieno & another v Opere (Civil Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7954 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling)

Otieno & another v Opere (Civil Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7954 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling)

The delay in filing the appeal was plausibly explained by counsel's closure, late access to the judgment, and the 1st applicant's medical absence abroad, and the draft memorandum showed an arguable appeal. On stay, the applicants demonstrated possible substantial loss and offered security by depositing the entire...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 7954 (KLR)
Parties
1st Applicant: ANTON PETER WACHIAJI OTIENO; 2nd Applicant: ISAIYA ONYANGO; Respondent: JANE ANYANGO OPERE
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Miscellaneous Application Seeking Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution and Stay of Proceedings / Ruling on Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application allowed
Judges
["OA Sewe"]
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Stay of Execution Pending Appeal, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Delay in Filing Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Execution of Decrees Extension of Time to Appeal Stay of Execution Pending Appeal Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance Delay in Filing Appeal

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 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANTON PETER WACHIAJI OTIENO

1st Applicant

ISAIYA ONYANGO

2nd Applicant

JANE ANYANGO OPERE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Miscellaneous Application Seeking Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution and Stay of Proceedings / Ruling on Notice of Motion

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause was shown to extend time for filing the intended appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants met the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. 3 What security, if any, should be ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in filing the appeal was plausibly explained by counsel's closure, late access to the judgment, and the 1st applicant's medical absence abroad, and the draft memorandum showed an arguable appeal. On stay, the applicants demonstrated possible substantial loss and offered security by depositing the entire decretal sum; accordingly, discretion was exercised in their favour, but on strict conditions.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicants to file the intended appeal out of time against the judgment in Homa Bay CMCC No. E049 of 2022: Jane Anyango Opere v Anton Peter Wachiaji Otieno & Isaiya Onyango.
  • Stay of execution of the judgment, decree, costs and interests in Homa Bay CMCC No. E049 of 2022 is granted pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal, on condition that the entire decretal sum of Kshs. 462,000 is deposited in a joint interest-earning account in the names of counsel for the applicant...