[2024] KEHC 6680 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 6680 (KLR)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal out of time and for stay of execution, filed on 15th July 2003, had never been prosecuted and had been idle in the registry for approximately 20 years. Such an inordinate delay is inexcusable and renders the application overtaken by events. The court held that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 6680 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: QAO Minor; Applicant: PNS; Respondent: Paresh N Sedani
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 162 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed for want of prosecution
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QAO Minor

Applicant

PNS

Applicant

Paresh N Sedani

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 application for leave to appeal out of time and stay of execution should be entertained after a delay of 20 years.
  2. 2 Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal out of time and for stay of execution, filed on 15th July 2003, had never been prosecuted and had been idle in the registry for approximately 20 years. Such an inordinate delay is inexcusable and renders the application overtaken by events. The court held that it is not permissible to wait for two decades to seek leave to appeal out of time, and therefore, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution. No orders as to costs were made, and the file was closed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • No orders as to costs.