[2009] KEHC 1722 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1722 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was not given due notice of the date of delivery of the judgment, and thus was unaware that time for filing an appeal was running out. The delay in filing the appeal was adequately explained and not due to the applicant's fault. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1722 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Paul Njuguna Kimani; Respondent: Faith Gathoni Karoga (suing as the legal representative of the estate of Emmanuel Wandere)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 351 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application granted
Judges
GG Okwengu
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Extension of Time Appeals Process

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Njuguna Kimani

Applicant

Faith Gathoni Karoga (suing as the legal representative of the estate of Emmanuel Wandere)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution pending appeal should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not given due notice of the date of delivery of the judgment, and thus was unaware that time for filing an appeal was running out. The delay in filing the appeal was adequately explained and not due to the applicant's fault. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, granting leave to file the appeal out of time. Regarding the stay of execution, the court noted that the applicant had already deposited the decretal sum in court, which constituted sufficient security. The respondent had not provided evidence to counter the applicant's claim that she may not be able to refund the decretal sum if paid. Therefore, the court found the...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to file his appeal out of time; the appeal must be filed within 21 days from the date hereof.
  • There shall be a stay of execution pending the intended appeal on condition that the decretal sum deposited in court is released to the parties' advocates to be deposited in an interest earning account in the joint names of the parties' advocates within 10 days from date of release.