Mary Njeri Ngugi & another v Joel Kimama Nganga & 3 others [2019] KEELC 4625 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court refused to extend time for depositing security for costs because the applicants showed no progress on their appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court should enlarge time for depositing security for costs or review the amount of security ordered
The application was not merited; the discretion was not exercised in the applicants' favour.
The court noted that the ruling of Hon. L. J. Gitumbi requiring compliance with conditions for stay of execution pending appeal had been delivered on 20th January 2017, and the applicants had not complied for about two years. The supporting affidavit of Mary Njeri Ngugi did not demonstrate sufficient reasons, nor did it show any steps taken towards filing the appeal or preparing the record. The application was therefore dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant seeking enlargement of time to comply with conditions for stay must demonstrate diligence, including steps taken in filing the appeal and preparing the record of appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2017 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21, Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Njeri Ngugi & another v Joel Kimama Nganga & 3 others [2019] KEELC 4625 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated on the face of the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4625/eng@2019-02-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.