[2004] KEHC 2420 (KLR)
The court found that the ruling of 17th October 2003 did not confer any substantive rights to the respondent that were capable of being executed, except for the order of costs. The substantive order that affected the applicant's rights was the dismissal of the objection proceedings on 25th November 2002, which was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2420 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Antony Kabuitu Rangata; Respondent: Esther Wangui Chomba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 5 of 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Restraining Order Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Grant of Letters of Administration, Appeals in Succession Matters, Costs Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Antony Kabuitu Rangata
Applicant
Esther Wangui Chomba
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Restraining Order Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order of stay of execution should be granted pending appeal.
- 2 Whether a restraining order should issue against the respondent regarding specified land titles.
- 3 Whether the orders sought are capable of being executed given the procedural history.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the ruling of 17th October 2003 did not confer any substantive rights to the respondent that were capable of being executed, except for the order of costs. The substantive order that affected the applicant's rights was the dismissal of the objection proceedings on 25th November 2002, which was not appealed. The confirmed grant was executed and the subject land transferred to third parties. Therefore, the application for stay of execution and restraining orders was misconceived, as there was nothing to stay or restrain in relation to the ruling of 17th October 2003. The only order capable of being stayed was the order for costs, and the refusal to reinstate the earlier...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 7th November 2003 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 5 OF 1988
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHOMBA RANGATA (DECEASED)
ANTONY KABUITU RANGATA…………………………......……………APPLICANT
Versus
ESTHER WANGUI CHOMBA……………………………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
The Summons before me, is brought under Rules 49, 59 and 73 of the P & A Rules as well as Order XLI Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant is seeking for an order of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.Secondly the applicant also seeks for a restraining order to be directed to the respondent against interfering with Title numbers Mutira/Kaguyu/3804 and Title number Mutira/Kaguyu/599. This Summons is supported by an affidavit of the applicant sworn on 7th July 2003.
According to the applicant he has filed a Notice of Appeal against the ruling of this court delivered on 17th October 2003. That application dated 15th July 2003 was also seeking for an order of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the application and an order seeking to reinstate the application dated 19th June 1995.
It is not at all clear what matters are being stayed, following the ruling of 17t October 2003. The ruling of 17th October 2003 did not confer any rights to the respondent capable of being executed apart from the order of costs. The order that gave the respondent powers or substantive rights was the one of 25th November 2002, which dismissed the objection proceedings. There was no appeal against that dismissal orders and the respondent, pursuant to the confirmed grant subdivided the subject land and the same is transferred to third parties. This fact is duly acknowledged by the applicant in the supporting affidavit.
I have carefully considered the application for stay of execution of the orders of 17th October 2003 and with tremendous respect to the counsel for the applicant, the only consequential order capable of being stayed is the one of costs against the applicant.
Refusal to reinstate the application that was dismissed on 25th November 2002 did not occasion any execution; the confirmed grant was executed after the order of 25th November 2002 and that is the order that the applicant in my view should have applied for stay.
Accordingly I dismiss the application dated 7th November 2003 as I find it has no merit with costs to the respondent.
Ruling read and signed on 6th February 2004.
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE