1. By a notice of motion dated 23rd April 2025 the applicant sought for orders that;
a) SPENT.
b) Pending the hearing and determination of this Application, an order of stay of execution does issue staying the execution of the Judgement / Decree of Magistrate Hon. S.N. Abuya dated the 13th November, 2024 in Kisii MCCC E312 OF 2021 and all consequential orders.
c) Pending the hearing and determination of the Appellant’s intended Appeal, an order of stay of execution does issue staying the execution of the Judgement / Decree of Magistrate Hon. S.N. Abuya dated the 13th November, 2024 in Kisii MCCC E312 OF 2021 and all consequential orders.
d) The Applicant herein be granted leave to appeal out of the prescribed time against the judgment and decree entered against him on 13th November 2024.
e) The costs of this application be borne by the respondents on full indemnity.
2. The applicant bases his application on the grounds stated here under and upon by the annexed affidavit of BRAMWEL CHIKHABI and upon such other or further grounds to be adduced at the hearing hereof: That;
a) That on 13th November 2024, judgment was entered in favor of the Respondent and against the Applicant in KISII MCCC E312 OF 2021 but the Applicant’s insurer inadvertently failed to give appropriate instructions to the counsel on record to preferred an appeal against the said judgment and it was not until after the prescribed period within which to prefer an appeal from the said judgment had lapsed that the Applicants’ insurer (BRITAM GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED) established that there was the need to prefer an appeal on issue of liability and quantum of damages as awarded in the said judgment in favor of the Respondent herein.
b) The Applicants had left the matter in the hands of their said insurer and legitimately believed that all the matters relating to the said judgment would be handled without any delay and as per the terms of the policy insurance.
c) The Applicants and indeed their said insurance company are aggrieved by the said judgment on the issue of liability and quantum of damages awarded to the Respondent in KISII MCCC E312 OF 2021 which is manifestly excessive.
d) The time within which to appeal the decision herein lapsed and as such the Applicant is reasonably apprehensive that the Respondent might proceed with execution at any time to the prejudice of the Applicants.
e) The Applicant herein being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court seeks leave of this Honorable Court to appeal out of the prescribed time in addition to an order of stay of execution of the said judgment and decree arising therefrom pending the hearing and determination of this application and the applicant’s intended appeal preferred from the said judgment.
f) The Applicant is aggrieved by the said judgment of the lower court by reason of the erroneous determination on the issue of liability and quantum of damages awarded to the Respondent which is manifestly excessive in the circumstance and while taking into account the injury suffered by the Respondent herein.
g) It is eminent that substantial loss may result to the Applicants unless an order of stay of execution is given because if execution proceed and the intended appeal succeeds, the proceeds of execution will be beyond the reach of the Applicant since the Respondent will have appropriated the proceeds and with no sufficient means to refund the Applicants.
h) The Applicant’s appeal is arguable, has merit and is with overwhelming chances of success.
i) The delay in lodging the appeal and the present application is inadvertent and was indeed, occasioned by the fact that the Applicant’s said insurer made a genuine excusable mistake. The Applicant will be praying that this court pardons the mistake and the Applicant further prays that he should not be punished for the same.
j) The Applicant is therefore unable to make any step on their own as they legitimately believed that they were entitled to representation by a counsel appointed by their insurance company to challenge the excessive award.
k) The instant application is made in good faith and the Applicants are ready to comply with any reasonable conditions that may be imposed by this Honorable Court to ensure that the Respondent does not suffer any prejudice in the very unlikely event that the appeal is not successful.
l) In those premises, it is in the very best interest of justice that this matter be certified as urgent and an ex parte order stay of execution be granted pending the hearing and determination of the present application and indeed pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
m) The Applicant herein has sufficient cause for seeking the orders sought.
3. The respondent opposed this application through a replying affidavit sworn by Joe Ongwacho Nyakweba that states the following;
a) That the respondent is well aware that judgment was entered in his favor against the Applicant in the primary suit; KISII MCCC/E312/2021 ON 13thNovember, 2024 whereby his advocates prepared filed and served his bill of costs to the Applicant’s advocates on record who failed to acknowledge receipt and/or respond to the same. (annexed and marked JON-1(a)&(b) are copies of the email extract and the bill of costs respectively)
b) That on 14th January, 2025, the respondent’s advocates wrote a letter to the Applicant’s advocates requesting them to pay the decretal amount and notifying them of the intention of taking out warrants. However, the same was ignored and/or assumed. (annexed and marked JON-2(a)&(b) is a copy of the email extract and the letter dated 14/01/2025 respectively) therefore the respondents advocates proceeded and applied for warrants of execution. (annexed & marked JON-3 is a copy of an application for execution of decree)
c) The respondent argues that the Applicant was awakened by the execution proceedings which came with the instant application strategically filed with the aim of delaying the execution process in that the respondent was advised by his advocates on record, which advice a verily believe to be true that the said application is inept, incompetent, frivolous, ill-conceived and without merit hence it should be dismissed with costs at the very first instance.
d) The respondents advocate stated that the application made by the Applicant was verily and had not met the threshold for stay of execution and/or extension of time to appeal as no sufficient reason has been advanced and/or supported by the Applicant.
e) That the respondent believes that the applications made by the applicant is an afterthought, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process and that the respondent may stand to suffer great prejudice if the same is allowed since it is evident that the Applicant has no grounds of staging the instant application and has been sleeping on the same only to be woken by the execution process.
f) That the respondent believes that “Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent” hence the Applicant has no remedy in failing to utilize his right to appeal within the limited timeframe as provided by the law, but however the Applicant has come to court too accordingly, the reliefs he seeks must fail late in the day in that the instant application is misplaced and maliciously filed to delay the execution process of justice.
g) That the respondent argues ‘that justice delayed is justice denied’ and that litigation must come to an end and that it is in the interest of justice that the application herein be dismissed with costs.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
4. I have considered the application herein; the response of the respondent herein vide a replying affidavit, the appellant’s submissions on the issue for determination is whether the applicant has met the threshold to be granted leave to file out of time.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
5. Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows: -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.
6. Leave to file out of time is a discretionary matter, which discretion ought to be exercised judiciously.
7. in the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, the Supreme Court derived the following principles to be considered when exercising its discretion to extend time to file an appeal out of time:
a. Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;
b.A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court;
c.whether the court should exercise discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case-to-case basis;
d.Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court;
e. Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted;
f. Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and
g. Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.
8. In the case of Thuita Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd. [2003] eKLR, the Court of Appeal faced with an application for extension of time to file a fresh Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal, the Court held as follows: -
“Over the years, the Court has, of course set out guidelines on what a single Judge should consider when dealing with an application for extension of time under rule 4 of the Rules. For instance, in Leo Sila Mutiso v Hellen Wangari Mwangi (Civil Application No. Nai 255 of 1997) (unreported), the Court expressed itself thus:” It is now settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary.
It is also well settled that in general the matters which this court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are: first, the length of the delay: secondly, the reason for the delay: thirdly (possibly), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted: and, fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted. “These, in general, are the things a judge exercising the discretion under rule 4 will take into account. We do not understand this list to be exhaustive; it was not meant to be exhaustive and that is clear from the use of the words “in general”. Rule 4 gives the single judge an unfettered discretion and so long as the discretion is exercised judicially, a judge would be perfectly entitled to consider any other factor outside those listed in the paragraph we have quoted above so long as the factor is relevant to the issue being considered. To limit such issues only to the four set out in the paragraph would be to fetter the discretion of single judge and as we have pointed out, the rule itself gives a discretion which is not fettered in anyway.
Again, as we have pointed out, we do not think the Court intended that the list of four items it set out in Mutiso’s case, ante, was ever meant or intended to be exhaustive. It is also clear that the third issue for consideration, namely, the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted is merely stated as something for a “possible” consideration, not that it must be considered. This is understandable because the “chances of an appeal succeeding” is normally dealt with by this Court under the rubric of an “an arguable appeal” or “an appeal which is not frivolous” and the full Court normally considers that issue under rule 5(2) (b) of the rules when the question is whether or not there should be a stay of execution, an injunction and so on. The requirement for the consideration of whether an intended or proposed appeal has any chances of success appears to have its origins in the case Bhaichand Bhagwanji Shah v D Jamnadas & Co Ltd [1959] EA 838 where Sir Owen Corrie, Ag JA is recorded as saying at pg. 840 Letter I to page 841 at Letter A:
“….It is thus essential in my view, that an applicant for an extension of time under rule 9 should support his application by a sufficient statement of the nature of the judgment and of his reasons for desiring to appeal against it to enable the Court to determine whether or not a refusal of the application would appear to cause an injustice. In the applicant’s affidavit of September 19 last no indication whatever of the nature of the case is included and I hold that if that affidavit stood alone, not sufficient ground would have been shown for granting application….”
9. Accordingly, I am tasked to assess whether the application satisfies and meets the requirements stipulated hereinabove.
LENGTH OF DELAY
10. The judgment in question was delivered on13th November 2024.The application for leave to appeal out of time appears to have been filed after the lapse of the appeal period, which under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (Kenya) is 30 days from the date of judgment. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed by 13th December 2024. The application was filed on 24.4.25 and this means that the delay was approximately 4 months 10 days from 13th November 2024 to 23rd April 2025.
REASONS FOR DELAY
11. The Applicant attributes the delay in filing the appeal to an inadvertent failure by its insurer to issue timely instructions to counsel to lodge the appeal. It is deponed that the Applicant, having entrusted the matter to its insurer, legitimately believed that all necessary legal steps would be undertaken within the prescribed time. The failure to file the appeal in time was therefore not deliberate, but rather a result of excusable oversight on the part of the insurer, which only realized the need to appeal after the lapse of time. The Applicant pleads that the delay was unintentional and urges the court not to punish it for the insurer’s mistake.
12. The respondent opposed the application in that it is evident that the Applicant only sought to file the present application after the Respondent had initiated execution proceedings. The Respondent asserts that the Applicant was indolent and failed to act within the statutory timelines despite having knowledge of the judgment. Parties have a duty to follow up on their matters to ensure that court orders are complied with and that the next step is taken if need be . The Applicant failed in this duty and woke up from slumber when execution was commenced . The delay was inordinate . . No sufficient or plausible explanation has been furnished to justify the delay.
13. The applicant has an arguable appeal as per the draft memorandum of appeal
14. On whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal out of time, it is trite law that justice delayed is justice denied. . I agree with the respondent that the intended appeal is an afterthought meant to delay the execution of the judgment.
15. The respondent will be prejudiced if the application is allowed as he is a decree holder with a right to enjoy the fruits of his judgment and he had commenced execution by the time the application was fild. .
16. I find that the application is devoid of merit and I proceed to disallow the same .
17. Since that the application for leave to file out of time has failed, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of stay of execution. The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents.
18. It is so ordered.
19. File is closed.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
10.7. 25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 THE PRESENCE OF :
MISS ANYANGO FOR THE APPLICANT
N/A FOR RESPONDENT
CA KIPCHIRCHIR
a) SPENT.
b) Pending the hearing and determination of this Application, an order of stay of execution does issue staying the execution of the Judgement / Decree of Magistrate Hon. S.N. Abuya dated the 13th November, 2024 in Kisii MCCC E312 OF 2021 and all consequential orders.
c) Pending the hearing and determination of the Appellant’s intended Appeal, an order of stay of execution does issue staying the execution of the Judgement / Decree of Magistrate Hon. S.N. Abuya dated the 13th November, 2024 in Kisii MCCC E312 OF 2021 and all consequential orders.
d) The Applicant herein be granted leave to appeal out of the prescribed time against the judgment and decree entered against him on 13th November 2024.
e) The costs of this application be borne by the respondents on full indemnity.
2. The applicant bases his application on the grounds stated here under and upon by the annexed affidavit of BRAMWEL CHIKHABI and upon such other or further grounds to be adduced at the hearing hereof: That;
a) That on 13th November 2024, judgment was entered in favor of the Respondent and against the Applicant in KISII MCCC E312 OF 2021 but the Applicant’s insurer inadvertently failed to give appropriate instructions to the counsel on record to preferred an appeal against the said judgment and it was not until after the prescribed period within which to prefer an appeal from the said judgment had lapsed that the Applicants’ insurer (BRITAM GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED) established that there was the need to prefer an appeal on issue of liability and quantum of damages as awarded in the said judgment in favor of the Respondent herein.
b) The Applicants had left the matter in the hands of their said insurer and legitimately believed that all the matters relating to the said judgment would be handled without any delay and as per the terms of the policy insurance.
c) The Applicants and indeed their said insurance company are aggrieved by the said judgment on the issue of liability and quantum of damages awarded to the Respondent in KISII MCCC E312 OF 2021 which is manifestly excessive.
d) The time within which to appeal the decision herein lapsed and as such the Applicant is reasonably apprehensive that the Respondent might proceed with execution at any time to the prejudice of the Applicants.
e) The Applicant herein being dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court seeks leave of this Honorable Court to appeal out of the prescribed time in addition to an order of stay of execution of the said judgment and decree arising therefrom pending the hearing and determination of this application and the applicant’s intended appeal preferred from the said judgment.
f) The Applicant is aggrieved by the said judgment of the lower court by reason of the erroneous determination on the issue of liability and quantum of damages awarded to the Respondent which is manifestly excessive in the circumstance and while taking into account the injury suffered by the Respondent herein.
g) It is eminent that substantial loss may result to the Applicants unless an order of stay of execution is given because if execution proceed and the intended appeal succeeds, the proceeds of execution will be beyond the reach of the Applicant since the Respondent will have appropriated the proceeds and with no sufficient means to refund the Applicants.
h) The Applicant’s appeal is arguable, has merit and is with overwhelming chances of success.
i) The delay in lodging the appeal and the present application is inadvertent and was indeed, occasioned by the fact that the Applicant’s said insurer made a genuine excusable mistake. The Applicant will be praying that this court pardons the mistake and the Applicant further prays that he should not be punished for the same.
j) The Applicant is therefore unable to make any step on their own as they legitimately believed that they were entitled to representation by a counsel appointed by their insurance company to challenge the excessive award.
k) The instant application is made in good faith and the Applicants are ready to comply with any reasonable conditions that may be imposed by this Honorable Court to ensure that the Respondent does not suffer any prejudice in the very unlikely event that the appeal is not successful.
l) In those premises, it is in the very best interest of justice that this matter be certified as urgent and an ex parte order stay of execution be granted pending the hearing and determination of the present application and indeed pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
m) The Applicant herein has sufficient cause for seeking the orders sought.
3. The respondent opposed this application through a replying affidavit sworn by Joe Ongwacho Nyakweba that states the following;
a) That the respondent is well aware that judgment was entered in his favor against the Applicant in the primary suit; KISII MCCC/E312/2021 ON 13thNovember, 2024 whereby his advocates prepared filed and served his bill of costs to the Applicant’s advocates on record who failed to acknowledge receipt and/or respond to the same. (annexed and marked JON-1(a)&(b) are copies of the email extract and the bill of costs respectively)
b) That on 14th January, 2025, the respondent’s advocates wrote a letter to the Applicant’s advocates requesting them to pay the decretal amount and notifying them of the intention of taking out warrants. However, the same was ignored and/or assumed. (annexed and marked JON-2(a)&(b) is a copy of the email extract and the letter dated 14/01/2025 respectively) therefore the respondents advocates proceeded and applied for warrants of execution. (annexed & marked JON-3 is a copy of an application for execution of decree)
c) The respondent argues that the Applicant was awakened by the execution proceedings which came with the instant application strategically filed with the aim of delaying the execution process in that the respondent was advised by his advocates on record, which advice a verily believe to be true that the said application is inept, incompetent, frivolous, ill-conceived and without merit hence it should be dismissed with costs at the very first instance.
d) The respondents advocate stated that the application made by the Applicant was verily and had not met the threshold for stay of execution and/or extension of time to appeal as no sufficient reason has been advanced and/or supported by the Applicant.
e) That the respondent believes that the applications made by the applicant is an afterthought, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process and that the respondent may stand to suffer great prejudice if the same is allowed since it is evident that the Applicant has no grounds of staging the instant application and has been sleeping on the same only to be woken by the execution process.
f) That the respondent believes that “Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent” hence the Applicant has no remedy in failing to utilize his right to appeal within the limited timeframe as provided by the law, but however the Applicant has come to court too accordingly, the reliefs he seeks must fail late in the day in that the instant application is misplaced and maliciously filed to delay the execution process of justice.
g) That the respondent argues ‘that justice delayed is justice denied’ and that litigation must come to an end and that it is in the interest of justice that the application herein be dismissed with costs.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
4. I have considered the application herein; the response of the respondent herein vide a replying affidavit, the appellant’s submissions on the issue for determination is whether the applicant has met the threshold to be granted leave to file out of time.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
5. Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows: -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.
6. Leave to file out of time is a discretionary matter, which discretion ought to be exercised judiciously.
7. in the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, the Supreme Court derived the following principles to be considered when exercising its discretion to extend time to file an appeal out of time:
a. Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court;
b.A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court;
c.whether the court should exercise discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case-to-case basis;
d.Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court;
e. Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted;
f. Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and
g. Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time.
8. In the case of Thuita Mwangi v Kenya Airways Ltd. [2003] eKLR, the Court of Appeal faced with an application for extension of time to file a fresh Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal, the Court held as follows: -
“Over the years, the Court has, of course set out guidelines on what a single Judge should consider when dealing with an application for extension of time under rule 4 of the Rules. For instance, in Leo Sila Mutiso v Hellen Wangari Mwangi (Civil Application No. Nai 255 of 1997) (unreported), the Court expressed itself thus:” It is now settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary.
It is also well settled that in general the matters which this court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are: first, the length of the delay: secondly, the reason for the delay: thirdly (possibly), the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted: and, fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted. “These, in general, are the things a judge exercising the discretion under rule 4 will take into account. We do not understand this list to be exhaustive; it was not meant to be exhaustive and that is clear from the use of the words “in general”. Rule 4 gives the single judge an unfettered discretion and so long as the discretion is exercised judicially, a judge would be perfectly entitled to consider any other factor outside those listed in the paragraph we have quoted above so long as the factor is relevant to the issue being considered. To limit such issues only to the four set out in the paragraph would be to fetter the discretion of single judge and as we have pointed out, the rule itself gives a discretion which is not fettered in anyway.
Again, as we have pointed out, we do not think the Court intended that the list of four items it set out in Mutiso’s case, ante, was ever meant or intended to be exhaustive. It is also clear that the third issue for consideration, namely, the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted is merely stated as something for a “possible” consideration, not that it must be considered. This is understandable because the “chances of an appeal succeeding” is normally dealt with by this Court under the rubric of an “an arguable appeal” or “an appeal which is not frivolous” and the full Court normally considers that issue under rule 5(2) (b) of the rules when the question is whether or not there should be a stay of execution, an injunction and so on. The requirement for the consideration of whether an intended or proposed appeal has any chances of success appears to have its origins in the case Bhaichand Bhagwanji Shah v D Jamnadas & Co Ltd [1959] EA 838 where Sir Owen Corrie, Ag JA is recorded as saying at pg. 840 Letter I to page 841 at Letter A:
“….It is thus essential in my view, that an applicant for an extension of time under rule 9 should support his application by a sufficient statement of the nature of the judgment and of his reasons for desiring to appeal against it to enable the Court to determine whether or not a refusal of the application would appear to cause an injustice. In the applicant’s affidavit of September 19 last no indication whatever of the nature of the case is included and I hold that if that affidavit stood alone, not sufficient ground would have been shown for granting application….”
9. Accordingly, I am tasked to assess whether the application satisfies and meets the requirements stipulated hereinabove.
LENGTH OF DELAY
10. The judgment in question was delivered on13th November 2024.The application for leave to appeal out of time appears to have been filed after the lapse of the appeal period, which under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (Kenya) is 30 days from the date of judgment. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed by 13th December 2024. The application was filed on 24.4.25 and this means that the delay was approximately 4 months 10 days from 13th November 2024 to 23rd April 2025.
REASONS FOR DELAY
11. The Applicant attributes the delay in filing the appeal to an inadvertent failure by its insurer to issue timely instructions to counsel to lodge the appeal. It is deponed that the Applicant, having entrusted the matter to its insurer, legitimately believed that all necessary legal steps would be undertaken within the prescribed time. The failure to file the appeal in time was therefore not deliberate, but rather a result of excusable oversight on the part of the insurer, which only realized the need to appeal after the lapse of time. The Applicant pleads that the delay was unintentional and urges the court not to punish it for the insurer’s mistake.
12. The respondent opposed the application in that it is evident that the Applicant only sought to file the present application after the Respondent had initiated execution proceedings. The Respondent asserts that the Applicant was indolent and failed to act within the statutory timelines despite having knowledge of the judgment. Parties have a duty to follow up on their matters to ensure that court orders are complied with and that the next step is taken if need be . The Applicant failed in this duty and woke up from slumber when execution was commenced . The delay was inordinate . . No sufficient or plausible explanation has been furnished to justify the delay.
13. The applicant has an arguable appeal as per the draft memorandum of appeal
14. On whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal out of time, it is trite law that justice delayed is justice denied. . I agree with the respondent that the intended appeal is an afterthought meant to delay the execution of the judgment.
15. The respondent will be prejudiced if the application is allowed as he is a decree holder with a right to enjoy the fruits of his judgment and he had commenced execution by the time the application was fild. .
16. I find that the application is devoid of merit and I proceed to disallow the same .
17. Since that the application for leave to file out of time has failed, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of stay of execution. The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents.
18. It is so ordered.
19. File is closed.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
10.7. 25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 THE PRESENCE OF :
MISS ANYANGO FOR THE APPLICANT
N/A FOR RESPONDENT
CA KIPCHIRCHIR