BOSCO MUTUNGA MUTINDA VS DORCAS RIZIKI MREMBA & RUEBEN MWILU SOMBA (sued as administrator of estate of late ABEN KYALO MWILU)

1. Before   me   is  the Notice  of  Motion  dated  10/8/2023   brought     under  Article 50 &  159(2)  of  the Constitution,  Section  79G  of  the Civil  Procedure  Act,  order    42  rule  6, order  45 rule 1(1) (b) of  the  Civil  Procedure   Rule. 
2. When  the  applicant  filed    application  dated  10/8/2023  and  the directions  of  this  court  were  that  the  urgency  of the  matter  had  not  been demonstrated
3. Upon  receiving  the   court’s   directions  - the  applicant  filled  the application dated 24/8/2023   to demonstrate  the  urgency  and the  need  for   the  prayers   sought. 
4. The  main  prayer  here  was  to  seek  stay of  execution   of  the  judgment  in Makueni  CM  CC  E145/2022  Dorcas  Riziki Mremba &  Another  Vs  Bosco  M. Mutinda. ;particularly   the warrant of   attachment issued   on 22/5/2023 & received on 22/8/2023.
5.  This   time the warrants were annexed.
6. Eventually parties   agreed to proceed   by way of written submission. 
7. According   to  the  applicant  Bosco  Mutunga  Mutinda  he  was at  all  material   times  the  co-registered  over  of  motor  vehicle     registration  no. KCT  466 W  with   Cooperative  Bank  of  Kenya  as per the    annexed  copy  of   log  book.  This  is   because  he  bought  the motor  vehicle   on loan  from the  said  bank. 
8. He deponed that upon the purchase -  the  bank  took   out  an insurance     policy  for  the motor  vehicle  with     CIC  Insurance  Company. 
9. According to him, in  2020 the motor  vehicle  was  involved  in  a  road  traffic  accident  while  it  was driven  by a  third  party. 
10. That  the accident  was  reported  to the  Insurance   Company -  who  appointed  an  advocate   after  the  suit  was filed and served    upon  the  Insurance  Company. 
11. That the driver   who  was  driving    the  motor  vehicle  was not joined    in the  suit and  that    the  applicant   was  never  called  upon  to  establish  his relationship  with the  driver  so as  to establish  vicarious  liability. 
12. That  the  matter  proceeded  for hearing  - and judgment    was  delivered   on 6/10/2022 against  him  - at  100%  liability and  damages of  Kshs.  4,436,814. 
13. That  he  became  aware  of    this   when  he  was  served   with  a  proclamation   notice  by  Crater  View  Auctioneers   on 23/5/2023    seeking  the  attachment  and  sale  of his  property  to  satisfy  a decree  of  the  court   in relation  to  the  judgment     of  6/10/2022.
14. He   sought    stay from the subordinate   court - vide an application dated    26/5/2023.
The  application   sought  among  other   orders   -  the  setting aside  of the execution  and unconditional  leave  to defend  the suit. 
15.   In that  court   he  deponed    that  he  did   not file  a  defence   in  good   time  because    he  was  never  served  with  summon  to  enter  appearance.  The application was opposed.  The court  found  that  the  defendant   was  served with summons to  enter  appearance, was  represented  by  counsel  - and  part of  the decretal  sum  had already   been paid   That   the applicant   had   indeed     participated  in the proceedings and had   only approached   the court  because he had   learnt that  the  Insurer   was  settling   only  the limit  of  Kshs. 3,000,000. The court declined his application. 
16. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal out of time -   and stay   of execution    pending that appeal. 
17. The main ground   is  that  the lower  court judgement was irregular  because  he,  the  defendant   did  not  get the opportunity   to defend  himself,  that  the  application  was made  without     undue  delay after  the  applicant  learnt  about  the  judgement  proclamation   notice  by auctioneers. 
These facts are deponed by the applicant in the supporting affidavit. 
18. The application   is opposed    through the affidavit   of Dorcas  Riziki  Mremba .  The  main  grounds  are  that    suit  was filed  on 28/9/2021,  judgment   was  entered   on  6/10/2022  but  the applicant   never  moved  the court.   That   the appellant’s   Insurer    has already paid   Kshs. 3,000,000   in line with  Section   5(b)  (ii) & Section   10(1)   of  the Insurance (M/V  Third  Party   Risks)  Act .
19. It is deponed that  the applicant  filed  the  application  330  days  after  the  judgment    and    that  is  no  reasonable    explanation for the delay; secondly   that  the applicant  has  settled  part of   the  decretal  sum; thirdly   that  there is no  security  offered; fourthly   that the applicant    has  not  demonstrated  substantial   loss   he  will  suffer. 
20. It is deponed further that  if   the  court  is  inclined  to allow  the  application  to order    either   1/2   the decretal  sum   be paid  to respondent/ the entire    decretal   sum    be deposited in a joint interest   earning  account.
21.   I  have   carefully  considered   the  application,  the  rival    affidavits     and the  submissions  by  the  respondent -  I  did not  see   any  by    the applicant. 
22. The  only issue  is  whether     the applicant     has  complied     with   the  requirements  of  order  42  rule  6 ,  Civil Procedure  Rule,  and  Section  79 G of  Civil  Procedure Act .
23.  Section 79G of  the  Civil Procedure  Act   states; 
Time for filing appeals from subordinate courts Every appeal from a subordinate court to the High Court shall be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order appealed against, excluding from such period any time which the lower court may certify as having been requisite for the preparation and delivery to the appellant of a copy of the decree or order: Provided that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
24. The applicant has  stated    that  the reason  for  the delay is  because  he  had  filed   an  application  in the  lower  court  as  soon  as  he learnt  of  the judgment   against  him.  That  fact  is  demonstrated   by  the  ruling  of the  subordinate  court  -  and   thereafter  he  filed this  application.  I would     find in the circumstances of this case that there was no inordinate delay in filing this application    in terms   of time.
25. What about   the prayers   under order 42 rule   6?.
26. On substantial    loss; the appellant has demonstrated    that though the Insurance   Company paid the Kshs.  3,000,000 he  did   not  have  the opportunity  to  participate   in the trial - the   advocates  for the Insurance  Company  proceeded  with the matter  but  did not   involve  him  in any  way. This part of the deposition  has not  been controverted by the respondent. That being the position then,  the  applicant  was  condemned  unheard  contrary    to Article 50 of  the Constitution  - he  would   suffer    substantial    loss  for  not having    participated  in   the  suit  and  being   required to  satisfy  a decree in   a  matter  he  did not  participate   in. 
27. The  respondent   will not  suffer  prejudice   because  as  pointed  out  3/4  of the  decretal sum     has already  been  paid .  The  applicant    only  seeks    stay  of  execution   of  what  is   in  the  warrant  and  an  appeal  against  the judgement   to the extent that it relates to him. 
That    sounds  fair and    just  in  that  as the  applicant  will have   to  provide  security   for  the   due performance    of  the   decree  in the event   his  appeal  fails. 
28. The respondent   has made  a  concession  that  the  applicant  can have  conditional  stay: - and :Hence - 
i. The   application for  stay  of execution   of    the  warrants   is  allowed   on  condition  that  1/2   the decretal  sum in  the warrant  is  deposited  in  a joint   interest  earning     account  or  in  court  within  30   days,  hereof . 
ii. The appeal  be filed  within  30 days ,  hereof     in default    the  stay    will  lapse, the  application  will  stand  dismissed  with costs  to  the respondent.

Dated, signed and delivered via CTS 12th August 2024.

Mumbua T. Matheka

Judge