[2018] KEELC 2561 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2561 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not filed a notice of appeal or applied for proceedings, and the time for filing such notice had already lapsed. Under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a stay of execution cannot be granted where no appeal has been preferred or notice of appeal filed. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2561 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bernard Kariuki Waruru; Defendant: Francis Waweru; Defendant: Moses Mwangi; Defendant: The City Council of Nairobi; Defendant: David Mwangi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Land Case 357 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Notice of Appeal, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Notice of Appeal Abuse of Process

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

Bernard Kariuki Waruru

Plaintiff

Francis Waweru

Defendant

Moses Mwangi

Defendant

The City Council of Nairobi

Defendant

David Mwangi

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 pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application is an abuse of the court process due to failure to file a notice of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not filed a notice of appeal or applied for proceedings, and the time for filing such notice had already lapsed. Under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a stay of execution cannot be granted where no appeal has been preferred or notice of appeal filed. The applicant's explanation that he was awaiting a survey report was insufficient to justify the delay or to invoke the court's jurisdiction for stay. Consequently, the application was found to lack merit and to constitute an abuse of the court process, warranting its dismissal with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff/respondent.