' Background and Introduction
1. I have considered the application dated 8th May 2025 which seeks to stay the execution of an interlocutory judgment entered on 15th July 2024 and for leave to file an appeal out of time against the said decision.
2. The record confirms that the respondents were duly served with the application, as evidenced by the affidavits of service filed. Despite having been afforded an opportunity to respond, no replying affidavit or grounds of opposition has been filed by the respondents. The application therefore remains unopposed. Nevertheless, the absence of opposition does not automatically entitle the applicant to the reliefs sought. This Court remains duty-bound to independently assess whether the applicant has satisfied the requisite legal threshold for the grant of the orders prayed for, taking this into account.
3. The applicant approaches this Court after an unsuccessful attempt to set aside the interlocutory judgment at the trial court. It is contended that the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by the ruling being uploaded to the CTS without the applicant’s knowledge. This assertion has not been challenged, and there is no evidence on record to contradict it.
4. Further, upon perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal dated 8th May 2025, I note that the grounds raised therein are substantial and merit consideration. Among the issues highlighted is the question of proper service of summons, which is a fundamental procedural matter that goes to the root of the judgment. The same ought to be addressed during the substantive appeal.
5. Under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court is empowered to grant a stay of execution pending appeal where sufficient cause is shown. In this case, the applicant has demonstrated that the decretal sum is significant and, if enforced, may adversely affect its operational capacity and the delivery of public services. The applicant being a government agency further strengthens the argument against requiring security for costs, especially in the absence of any opposition from the respondent.
6. I am equally satisfied that the explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeal is reasonable and plausible. The applicant has demonstrated a genuine intention to pursue the appeal.
Disposition
7. In light of the foregoing, and there being no opposition to the application, the Court finds merit in the application dated 8th May 2025 and makes the following orders:
i. There shall be a stay of execution of the interlocutory judgment entered in Milimani Commercial Suit No. E382 of 2023; Commercial and International Bank Limited v National Transport and Safety Authority on 15th July 2024, together with all consequential orders, decrees, proclamations, attachments, and enforcement processes, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
ii. Leave is granted to the applicant to file an appeal out of time against the Ruling delivered on 28th January 2025 in Milimani Commercial Suit No. E382 of 2023; Commercial and International Bank Limited v National Transport and Safety Authority
iii. The costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of the appeal.
'
1. I have considered the application dated 8th May 2025 which seeks to stay the execution of an interlocutory judgment entered on 15th July 2024 and for leave to file an appeal out of time against the said decision.
2. The record confirms that the respondents were duly served with the application, as evidenced by the affidavits of service filed. Despite having been afforded an opportunity to respond, no replying affidavit or grounds of opposition has been filed by the respondents. The application therefore remains unopposed. Nevertheless, the absence of opposition does not automatically entitle the applicant to the reliefs sought. This Court remains duty-bound to independently assess whether the applicant has satisfied the requisite legal threshold for the grant of the orders prayed for, taking this into account.
3. The applicant approaches this Court after an unsuccessful attempt to set aside the interlocutory judgment at the trial court. It is contended that the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by the ruling being uploaded to the CTS without the applicant’s knowledge. This assertion has not been challenged, and there is no evidence on record to contradict it.
4. Further, upon perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal dated 8th May 2025, I note that the grounds raised therein are substantial and merit consideration. Among the issues highlighted is the question of proper service of summons, which is a fundamental procedural matter that goes to the root of the judgment. The same ought to be addressed during the substantive appeal.
5. Under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court is empowered to grant a stay of execution pending appeal where sufficient cause is shown. In this case, the applicant has demonstrated that the decretal sum is significant and, if enforced, may adversely affect its operational capacity and the delivery of public services. The applicant being a government agency further strengthens the argument against requiring security for costs, especially in the absence of any opposition from the respondent.
6. I am equally satisfied that the explanation provided for the delay in filing the appeal is reasonable and plausible. The applicant has demonstrated a genuine intention to pursue the appeal.
Disposition
7. In light of the foregoing, and there being no opposition to the application, the Court finds merit in the application dated 8th May 2025 and makes the following orders:
i. There shall be a stay of execution of the interlocutory judgment entered in Milimani Commercial Suit No. E382 of 2023; Commercial and International Bank Limited v National Transport and Safety Authority on 15th July 2024, together with all consequential orders, decrees, proclamations, attachments, and enforcement processes, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
ii. Leave is granted to the applicant to file an appeal out of time against the Ruling delivered on 28th January 2025 in Milimani Commercial Suit No. E382 of 2023; Commercial and International Bank Limited v National Transport and Safety Authority
iii. The costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of the appeal.
'