Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Simon Ndungu Mungai v Peter Ngethe Gathiga

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Appeal 134 of 2006 SIMON NDUNGU MUNGAI ………………............................………… APPELLANT VERSUS PETER NGETHE GATHIGA ………..…….......................………. RESPONDENT (An appeal from the Ruling and orders made on the 24th February 2006 by the Honourable Mrs. Kabucho, resident magistrate Kiambu RMCC No.85 between SIMON NDUNGU MUNGAI ………………...................…............PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT AND PETER NGETHE GATHIGI ………………..................… DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT RULING BACKGROUND 1. The applicant/appellant/original plaintiff applied to amend his plaint to add a sum of Ksh.100,000/- to his claim. The trial magistrate on hearing this application found it had no merit and dismissed the same. 2. The applicant/appellant/original plaintiff – appealed against that ruling. In the meantime the proceedings of the lower courts were set for hearing in the near future. 3. The applicant filed the current application for stay of proceeding pending appeal on 8.3.06 and filed on 7.3.06. II: Findings 4. In the normal circumstances there should be no stay for proceeding on an Interlocutory Application. Nonetheless in this circumstances on the issues raised on amendments of the plaint touches on the question of the right to be fairly heard. 5. I allow the said application and order that:- “there be a say of proceeding in Kiambu Senior Resident Magistrates Court Case No.85/01 pending the determination of the appeal at whatever stage. Costs in the cause. Dated this 18th day of May 2006 at Nairobi.

page 1 of 2

M.A. Ang’awa Judge Mang’erere Ngisa & Co. Advocates for the appellant C.K. Chege & Co. Advocates for the defendant

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.