[2022] KEELC 12832 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 12832 (KLR)

The court found that the notice of appeal was filed out of time without leave or enlargement of time, rendering the application for stay of execution incompetent. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the explanation offered through submissions was rejected. Furthermore, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 12832 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Noah Kipkosgey Barngetuny (suing as the administrator of Estate of the late Gideon Gari Kibarono alias Gari Kibarno); Defendant: Stephen Kipss Kirwa; Defendant: Thomas Kimaru Sawe
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 113 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MN Mwanyale
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Timelines, Land Title Execution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Appeal Timelines Land Title Execution

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

Noah Kipkosgey Barngetuny (suing as the administrator of Estate of the late Gideon Gari Kibarono alias Gari Kibarno)

Plaintiff

Stephen Kipss Kirwa

Defendant

Thomas Kimaru Sawe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the prescribed time and with proper leave.
  3. 3 Whether the execution of the judgment has already taken place, rendering the application moot.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the notice of appeal was filed out of time without leave or enlargement of time, rendering the application for stay of execution incompetent. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the explanation offered through submissions was rejected. Furthermore, the court noted that the orders sought to be stayed had already been executed, as confirmed by the respondent's affidavit. Consequently, the application for stay of execution had no basis in law or fact and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated July 4, 2022 is dismissed with costs.