9.3.26
CORAM : T.A ODERA JUDGE
CA -KIPCHIRCHIR
OCHOKI: iam for respondent. It is for NTSC in view of orders in Misc E120 of 2025. The entire decretal sum was to be deposited in court within 45 days. There has been no compliance
Munji: I hold brief for Nyasani for the appellant . My instructions are that unfortunately we have not complied with directions on deposit of decretal sum in court. the file is in accounts department . We seek 7 days to comply. We have filed ROA and submissions to show our seriousness with the appeal .
Ochoki : The order sought to be reviewed was made on 29.10.25 on 26.11.25 i wrote to them and they said they suggested 7 days to comply. No cause has been shown for non compliance . I seek that court proceeds to dismiss appeal with costs to respondents. Court orders are not made in vain. if they had any challenges they ought to have filed an application. my sister is giving evidence from the bar .
Munji: i have heard counsel . The orders in the Misc application were two we have partially cxomplied with the orders . the orders are not independent . We have shown good faith in partially complied. We humbly seek time to fully comply .
RULING
I have heard both Counsel . The orders 29.9.25 issued in Misc 120 of 2025 dated are clear on deposit of security . The consent provided as follows ‘’ 9.3.26
CORAM : T.A ODERA JUDGE
CA -KIPCHIRCHIR
OCHOKI: iam for respondent. It is for NTSC in view of orders in Misc E120 of 2025. The entire decretal sum was to be deposited in court within 45 days. There has been no compliance
Munji: I hold brief for Nyasani for the appellant . My instructions are that unfortunately we have not complied with directions on deposit of decretal sum in court. the file is in accounts department . We seek 7 days to comply. We have filed ROA and submissions to show our seriousness with the appeal .
Ochoki : The order sought to be reviewed was made on 29.10.25 on 26.11.25 i wrote to them and they said they suggested 7 days to comply. No cause has been shown for non compliance . I seek that court proceeds to dismiss appeal with costs to respondents. Court orders are not made in vain. if they had any challenges they ought to have filed an application. my sister is giving evidence from the bar .
Munji: i have heard counsel . The orders in the Misc application were two we have partially cxomplied with the orders . the orders are not independent . We have shown good faith in partially complied. We humbly seek time to fully comply .
RULING
I have heard both Counsel . The orders 29.9.25 issued in Misc 120 of 2025 are clear on deposit of security . The same have not been not complied with todate. On 23.2.26 this matter came up for mention and counsel for the respondent raised the same issue and counsel for appellant sought indulgence and counsel was given time to make the deposit. today 5 months down the line counsel is still seeking more time to comply. The difficulty been faced by the appellant to deposit the decretal sum is not clear. Court orders are not issued in vain as rightly submitted by counsel for the respondent. .
This court has been very lenient with the appellant. There seems to be no intention to deposit the decretal sum as counsel is now pursuing hearing of the appeal. The filing of appeal and stay of execution were allowed on condition that the decretal sum is deposited in court within 45 days . The appellant is in breach of the said condition for deposit of security and the orders were made by consent which can only be extended if the respondent agreed . The appeal is dismissed for not compliance with Court orders . Costs to respondent.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
9.3.26
Munji : we seek leave to appeal .
Ochoki : No objection though it is automatic
Order :Leave to appeal is granted .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
9.3.26
CORAM : T.A ODERA JUDGE
CA -KIPCHIRCHIR
OCHOKI: iam for respondent. It is for NTSC in view of orders in Misc E120 of 2025. The entire decretal sum was to be deposited in court within 45 days. There has been no compliance
Munji: I hold brief for Nyasani for the appellant . My instructions are that unfortunately we have not complied with directions on deposit of decretal sum in court. the file is in accounts department . We seek 7 days to comply. We have filed ROA and submissions to show our seriousness with the appeal .
Ochoki : The order sought to be reviewed was made on 29.10.25 on 26.11.25 i wrote to them and they said they suggested 7 days to comply. No cause has been shown for non compliance . I seek that court proceeds to dismiss appeal with costs to respondents. Court orders are not made in vain. if they had any challenges they ought to have filed an application. my sister is giving evidence from the bar .
Munji: i have heard counsel . The orders in the Misc application were two we have partially cxomplied with the orders . the orders are not independent . We have shown good faith in partially complied. We humbly seek time to fully comply .
RULING
I have heard both Counsel . The orders 29.9.25 issued in Misc 120 of 2025 dated are clear on deposit of security . The consent provided as follows ‘’ 9.3.26
CORAM : T.A ODERA JUDGE
CA -KIPCHIRCHIR
OCHOKI: iam for respondent. It is for NTSC in view of orders in Misc E120 of 2025. The entire decretal sum was to be deposited in court within 45 days. There has been no compliance
Munji: I hold brief for Nyasani for the appellant . My instructions are that unfortunately we have not complied with directions on deposit of decretal sum in court. the file is in accounts department . We seek 7 days to comply. We have filed ROA and submissions to show our seriousness with the appeal .
Ochoki : The order sought to be reviewed was made on 29.10.25 on 26.11.25 i wrote to them and they said they suggested 7 days to comply. No cause has been shown for non compliance . I seek that court proceeds to dismiss appeal with costs to respondents. Court orders are not made in vain. if they had any challenges they ought to have filed an application. my sister is giving evidence from the bar .
Munji: i have heard counsel . The orders in the Misc application were two we have partially cxomplied with the orders . the orders are not independent . We have shown good faith in partially complied. We humbly seek time to fully comply .
RULING
I have heard both Counsel . The orders 29.9.25 issued in Misc 120 of 2025 are clear on deposit of security . The same have not been not complied with todate. On 23.2.26 this matter came up for mention and counsel for the respondent raised the same issue and counsel for appellant sought indulgence and counsel was given time to make the deposit. today 5 months down the line counsel is still seeking more time to comply. The difficulty been faced by the appellant to deposit the decretal sum is not clear. Court orders are not issued in vain as rightly submitted by counsel for the respondent. .
This court has been very lenient with the appellant. There seems to be no intention to deposit the decretal sum as counsel is now pursuing hearing of the appeal. The filing of appeal and stay of execution were allowed on condition that the decretal sum is deposited in court within 45 days . The appellant is in breach of the said condition for deposit of security and the orders were made by consent which can only be extended if the respondent agreed . The appeal is dismissed for not compliance with Court orders . Costs to respondent.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
9.3.26
Munji : we seek leave to appeal .
Ochoki : No objection though it is automatic
Order :Leave to appeal is granted .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
9.3.26