[2016] KEELC 897 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 897 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was fatally defective due to inconsistencies between the notice of motion and the supporting affidavit, with references to different case numbers and subject matters. Furthermore, the court had already declined a similar application on 7th May 2015,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 897 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Ali Gadaffi Hamisi; Appellant: Farida A. Salim; Respondent: Francis Mulina Mutungu; Respondent: Bephine N. Shiraho; Respondent: Margaret A. Shiraho
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 48 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Res Judicata, Appeal Procedure, Variance in Pleadings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Res Judicata Appeal Procedure Variance in Pleadings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Gadaffi Hamisi

Appellant

Farida A. Salim

Appellant

Francis Mulina Mutungu

Respondent

Bephine N. Shiraho

Respondent

Margaret A. Shiraho

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have satisfied the requirements for issuance of stay pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the application is res judicata in light of a previous similar application.
  3. 3 Whether there is a material variance between the notice of motion and the supporting affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was fatally defective due to inconsistencies between the notice of motion and the supporting affidavit, with references to different case numbers and subject matters. Furthermore, the court had already declined a similar application on 7th May 2015, rendering the present application res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. The notice of appeal annexed to the affidavit referred to a ruling delivered a year earlier and not the subject of the current application. The court concluded that the application was frivolous, an abuse of court process, and without merit, and therefore dismissed it with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 22nd May 2015 is dismissed with costs.
  • The interim orders of stay of 28th May 2015 are hereby vacated.