[2015] KEHC 948 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 948 (KLR)

The court found that although the applicants did not fully comply with the previous orders regarding the deposit of security, they demonstrated good faith by taking steps to fulfill the court's directions, including correspondence with the respondent and preparing a cheque for the decretal sum. The delay was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 948 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Stanley Muiru Njunguna; Applicant: Anne Nkirote; Respondent: Alice Njeri (Suing as a Legal Representative of the Estate of Simon Kamau)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 288 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Motion for Stay of Execution and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application allowed with conditions.
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Security for Decretal Sum
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Extension of Time Security for Decretal Sum

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley Muiru Njunguna

Applicant

Anne Nkirote

Applicant

Alice Njeri (Suing as a Legal Representative of the Estate of Simon Kamau)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted a stay of execution of the decree pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the time for filing an appeal and depositing security should be enlarged given the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' delay in complying with previous court orders was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicants did not fully comply with the previous orders regarding the deposit of security, they demonstrated good faith by taking steps to fulfill the court's directions, including correspondence with the respondent and preparing a cheque for the decretal sum. The delay was attributed to a genuine disagreement over the choice of financial institution, not to willful disobedience. The court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time for filing the appeal and depositing the security, and ordered that the security be deposited in court due to the parties' inability to agree on a bank. The court also granted a stay of execution pending appeal,...

Court Disposition

Application allowed with conditions.

Orders

  • The appellant shall file an appeal within 5 days from the date of the ruling.
  • The security (decretal sum) shall be deposited in court within 21 days from the date of the ruling.