Before this court is an application dated 12th May, 2026 brought pursuant to Section 93A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 42 Rule 6(1), Order 50 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The application seeks that this court issues stay of execution of the ruling delivered in Kehancha MCCCMISC NO E002 of 2026 delivered o 31st March 2026 pending hearing and determination of the appeal herein.
The Applicant also sought that the court issues an order of stay of the proceedings in Migori SCCCOMM NO E081 of 2026 pending hearing and determination of the appeal herein.
The application is supported by the grounds on its face and supporting affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 12th May 2026.
The Respondents opposed the application and directions were taken that the same be heard by way of written submissions.
This court has considered the application, the grounds, the averments in the supporting affidavit together with the response and respective submissions and find that the same has no merit. Its ironical that whereas the Applicant sought leave to file appeal out of time and was granted, he thinks that the Respondents do not deserve similar discretion of the court. The matter in the Small Claims Court was served upon the Applicant and he has the duty to defend it to enable court determine it on merit.
The application herein is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI, THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.
JUDGE
The Applicant also sought that the court issues an order of stay of the proceedings in Migori SCCCOMM NO E081 of 2026 pending hearing and determination of the appeal herein.
The application is supported by the grounds on its face and supporting affidavit of the Applicant sworn on 12th May 2026.
The Respondents opposed the application and directions were taken that the same be heard by way of written submissions.
This court has considered the application, the grounds, the averments in the supporting affidavit together with the response and respective submissions and find that the same has no merit. Its ironical that whereas the Applicant sought leave to file appeal out of time and was granted, he thinks that the Respondents do not deserve similar discretion of the court. The matter in the Small Claims Court was served upon the Applicant and he has the duty to defend it to enable court determine it on merit.
The application herein is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MIGORI, THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.
JUDGE