[2005] KEHC 881 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 881 (KLR)

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was unfounded because there is no requirement under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for an applicant seeking a stay of execution to annex the order sought to be stayed. The court further held that the absence of signed or certified copies of the proceedings and judgment does not bar the court from hearing an application for stay of execution; such requirements are relevant only at the stage when the appeal is being admitted for hearing. The court emphasized that preliminary objections must be clear, raise pure points of law, and not be vague or uninformative. Consequently, the preliminary objection was...

Citation
[2005] KEHC 881 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Agnes Mukami & 5 Others; Respondent: Ngewaji Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 September 2005
Case Number
Civil Appeal 123 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicants
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Preliminary Objection, Appeals Process, Court Inherent Power
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Preliminary Objection Appeals Process Court Inherent Power

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agnes Mukami & 5 Others

Appellant

Ngewaji Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was valid and properly taken.
  2. 2 Whether an application for stay of execution must annex the order sought to be stayed under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether failure to annex signed or certified copies of proceedings and judgment bars the court from hearing an application for stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was unfounded because there is no requirement under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules for an applicant seeking a stay of execution to annex the order sought to be stayed. The court further held that the absence of signed or certified copies of the proceedings and judgment does not bar the court from hearing an application for stay of execution; such requirements are relevant only at the stage when the appeal is being admitted for hearing. The court emphasized that preliminary objections must be clear, raise pure points of law, and not be vague or uninformative. Consequently, the preliminary objection was...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicants

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection are awarded to the applicants.