[2004] KEHC 2296 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 2296 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants, by filing multiple applications for similar reliefs in both the High Court and the lower court, engaged in conduct amounting to an abuse of the court process. The Civil Procedure Rules do not provide for a party to seek interim orders pending the hearing and determination of an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 2296 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Anwarali & Brothers Ltd.; Respondent: Jacinta Wamboi Kanagi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 13 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Interim Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
JW Gacheche
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Stay of Execution, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Stay of Execution Interlocutory Applications

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anwarali & Brothers Ltd.

Appellant

Jacinta Wamboi Kanagi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Interim Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the filing of multiple applications for stay of execution constitutes an abuse of court process.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant interim orders pending determination of an earlier application.
  3. 3 Whether the present application is competent under the Civil Procedure rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, by filing multiple applications for similar reliefs in both the High Court and the lower court, engaged in conduct amounting to an abuse of the court process. The Civil Procedure Rules do not provide for a party to seek interim orders pending the hearing and determination of an earlier application. The proper course would have been for the applicants to withdraw the earlier application before filing a new one, rather than having both pending simultaneously or moving two courts at the same time. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and dismissed the application with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs for being an abuse of the process.