'
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E114 OF 2025
DAVID KIMATHI………………………. APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
BRANTONY NYONGESA WANGILA……………… RESPONDENT
RULING.
1. Upon the appellant’s Chamber Summons dated 2ND August 2025 coming up for hearing on the prayer for certification of the appellant’s substantive Notice of Motion of even date as urgent and its admission for hearing during the High Court Recess, I have duly considered the appellant’s/applicant’s said application and the supporting affidavit sworn by Kirigo Ann on even date and I do note that whereas the appellant was on 9th July 2025 granted an order of stay of execution for a period of 30 days by the trial court in Kimilili CMCC E169 /2022, his advocate Kirigo Ann has sworn a false affidavit wherein she has in paragraph Numbered as 10 while in actual fact is No 6 deposed that as at the date of swearing that affidavit , the stay orders had since lapsed yet they had not. This Court does not take kindly of such deposition of material falsehood. A party that seeks equity must approach the seat of justice with clean hands. Given that Ms Kirigo Ann is an agent of the appellant, her soiled hands are a reflection of the lack of hygiene of her instructing client; the appellant.
2. In light of the matters aforesaid I am not inclined to grant the prayers sought at the ex parte stage. I am thus making the following orders:-
i) The appellant’s Notice of Motion dated 2.8.2025 is neither certified as urgent nor admitted for hearing during the High Court Recess.
ii) The application shall be mentioned on 24.9.2024 befor High Court No 1 for purposes of taking directions.
Delivered, Signed and Dated at Bungoma this 29th day of August 2025.
M. S. SHARIFF
JUDGE
'
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E114 OF 2025
DAVID KIMATHI………………………. APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
BRANTONY NYONGESA WANGILA……………… RESPONDENT
RULING.
1. Upon the appellant’s Chamber Summons dated 2ND August 2025 coming up for hearing on the prayer for certification of the appellant’s substantive Notice of Motion of even date as urgent and its admission for hearing during the High Court Recess, I have duly considered the appellant’s/applicant’s said application and the supporting affidavit sworn by Kirigo Ann on even date and I do note that whereas the appellant was on 9th July 2025 granted an order of stay of execution for a period of 30 days by the trial court in Kimilili CMCC E169 /2022, his advocate Kirigo Ann has sworn a false affidavit wherein she has in paragraph Numbered as 10 while in actual fact is No 6 deposed that as at the date of swearing that affidavit , the stay orders had since lapsed yet they had not. This Court does not take kindly of such deposition of material falsehood. A party that seeks equity must approach the seat of justice with clean hands. Given that Ms Kirigo Ann is an agent of the appellant, her soiled hands are a reflection of the lack of hygiene of her instructing client; the appellant.
2. In light of the matters aforesaid I am not inclined to grant the prayers sought at the ex parte stage. I am thus making the following orders:-
i) The appellant’s Notice of Motion dated 2.8.2025 is neither certified as urgent nor admitted for hearing during the High Court Recess.
ii) The application shall be mentioned on 24.9.2024 befor High Court No 1 for purposes of taking directions.
Delivered, Signed and Dated at Bungoma this 29th day of August 2025.
M. S. SHARIFF
JUDGE
'