[2021] KEHC 6603 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 6603 (KLR)

The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate and that the applicant had provided satisfactory reasons for the delay. The draft Memorandum of Appeal raised arguable issues that deserved to be heard on appeal. Therefore, it was in the interest of justice to grant the applicant an extension of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 6603 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Vijay Kumar Garg T/A Kindo Laboratories Enterprises Ltd; Respondent: Anita Chemtai Kaos, Wilson Namunyu Omari (Suing as joint Administrators of the Estate of Reuben Kemboi Namunyu); Respondent: Lexman D Hirani T/A JSAN Enterprises
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 15 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application for extension of time allowed; temporary stay of execution granted for 14 days; costs awarded to respondent
Judges
LK Kimaru
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay Kumar Garg T/A Kindo Laboratories Enterprises Ltd

Applicant

Anita Chemtai Kaos, Wilson Namunyu Omari (Suing as joint Administrators of the Estate of Reuben Kemboi Namunyu)

Respondent

Lexman D Hirani T/A JSAN Enterprises

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending the filing of a formal application for stay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not inordinate and that the applicant had provided satisfactory reasons for the delay. The draft Memorandum of Appeal raised arguable issues that deserved to be heard on appeal. Therefore, it was in the interest of justice to grant the applicant an extension of time to file the appeal. However, the court agreed with the respondent that a stay of execution could not be granted in the absence of a pending appeal, and such an order would only be considered upon the formal filing of the appeal. Nonetheless, the court granted a temporary stay of execution for fourteen days to allow the applicant to file a formal application for stay in...

Court Disposition

application for extension of time allowed; temporary stay of execution granted for 14 days; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • The applicant is granted extension of time to file and serve the Memorandum of Appeal within seven days.
  • Temporary stay of execution of the judgment and decree is granted for fourteen days pending the filing of a formal application for stay in the appeal.