[2018] KEHC 8938 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8938 (KLR)

The court found that the stay of execution orders granted on 16th February, 2017, were expressly limited to a period of 30 days and were conditional upon the deposit of the decretal sum. Since the condition was not met and the period had lapsed, the orders had already expired by operation of law. There were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 8938 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Andeson Njaramba Mugi; Applicant: Joyce Wambui Nyoike; Respondent: John Magu Wanyoike; Respondent: Angwenyi Damaris
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 418 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Orders for Non Compliance With Condition of Stay
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Setting Aside Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Stay of Execution Setting Aside Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andeson Njaramba Mugi

Applicant

Joyce Wambui Nyoike

Applicant

John Magu Wanyoike

Respondent

Angwenyi Damaris

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Orders for Non Compliance With Condition of Stay

  1. 1 Whether the court can set aside stay of execution orders where the decretal sum was not deposited as previously ordered.
  2. 2 Whether there are subsisting orders capable of being set aside after the lapse of the conditional period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the stay of execution orders granted on 16th February, 2017, were expressly limited to a period of 30 days and were conditional upon the deposit of the decretal sum. Since the condition was not met and the period had lapsed, the orders had already expired by operation of law. There were therefore no subsisting orders for the court to set aside. The application was dismissed as moot, with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 17th October, 2017 is dismissed with costs.