[2009] KEHC 62 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant failed to comply with the condition to file the record of appeal within 30 days, the delay was partially explained by the late availability of typed proceedings. However, the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the further delay in filing the motion for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 62 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Sarah Redempta Nthambi; Respondent: Ephantus Karanja Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 546 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time to File Record of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time allowed; order for stay of execution set aside.
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Non Compliance With Court Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sarah Redempta Nthambi
Appellant
Ephantus Karanja Maina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time to File Record of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for extension of time to file the record of appeal.
- 2 Whether the failure to comply with the condition for filing the record of appeal within 30 days warrants setting aside the stay of execution.
- 3 Whether the respondent will suffer prejudice if the application is allowed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant failed to comply with the condition to file the record of appeal within 30 days, the delay was partially explained by the late availability of typed proceedings. However, the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the further delay in filing the motion for extension of time. Despite this, the court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice to extend the time for filing the record of appeal, deeming the record filed on 18th April, 2009 as properly filed. However, due to the applicant's lack of diligence and failure to comply with all conditions, including depositing the decretal sum into an interest-earning account, the...
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time allowed; order for stay of execution set aside.
Orders
- Time for filing the record of appeal is extended and the record filed on 18th April, 2009 is deemed properly filed.
- The order for stay of execution pending appeal is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Appeal 546 of 2008
SARAH REDEMPTA NTHAMBI………..……….APPELLANT
VERSUS
EPHANTUS KARANJA MAINA……………...RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. By a notice of motion dated 16th March, 2009, Sarah Redempta Nthambi, (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), seeks an order of this court to enlarge time by a further 90 days to enable her file her record of appeal. On 1st December, 2008, the applicant who had filed a memorandum of appeal on14th October, 2008 was granted a conditional order for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. One of the conditions upon which the order was granted, was that the appellant was to file and serve a record of appeal within 30 days.
2. The applicant explains through an affidavit sworn by her counsel, Mrs. Grace Mandela, that the record of appeal could not be filed within the 30 days as efforts to obtain typed copies of the proceedings from the lower court were not fruitful. The applicant’s counsel explains that she only received a letter from the lower court on 13th February, 2009 informing her that the proceedings were ready.
3. Relying on Egerton University vs Republic [2004] 2KLR 132 and Pothiwalla vs Kidogo Basi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd & 31 others [2003] KLR 733, Mrs. Mandela urged the court to exercise its discretion in the applicant’s favour as no prejudice will result to the respondent if the application is allowed.
4. The application was opposed through an affidavit sworn by the respondent, Ephantus Karanja Maina. Mr. Kamunde who appeared for the respondent maintained that the application is misconceived and untenable in law, as the applicant is seeking extension of time within which to file the record of appeal which has already been filed. It was further maintained that the application is contemptuous, and an abuse of the court process, as it is brought by a party who is in violation of court orders. It was argued that the respondent will be prejudiced if the application is granted as the money which was deposited in court has not been released.
5. Having considered this application, it is evident that the applicant has failed to comply with one of the conditions upon which the order for stay of execution was granted. This is the condition with regard to filing the record of appeal within 30 days from 1st December, 2008. Although the applicant explains that the delay was as a result of the delay in obtaining typed copies of the proceedings, it is apparent that the proceedings were ready for collection on 11th February, 2009, and even allowing for the time for preparing for the certificate of delay, which was issued on 23rd February, 2009, the applicant has not given any good explanation for the delay in filing the motion for extension of time, which was filed 3 weeks later on 16th March, 2009.
6. It is true that the court has unlimited powers under Order XLIX Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, to extend time for the doing of any act or taking any proceedings ordered by the court. I therefore find it necessary in the interest of justice to exercise this unlimited discretion in the applicant’s favour by extending time to enable the applicant file the record of appeal. Nevertheless, I do note that in addition to failing to file the record of appeal within the 30 days, the decretal sum which was deposited in court has not been deposited into an interest earning account. I find that the applicant has not exhibited zealousness in the pursuit of his appeal by complying with the conditions imposed by this court. This will obviously be prejudicial to the respondent who has a judgment in his favour.
7. For the above reasons, I will extend time and deem the record of appeal which was filed on 18th April, 2009 as properly filed. I will however, set aside the order for stay of execution pending appeal. The respondent is therefore at liberty to execute the decree.
Those shall be the orders of this court.
Dated and delivered this 8th day of June, 2009
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Advocate for the applicant absent
Mwaura H/B for Kamunde for the respondent
Erick – Court clerk