[2025] KEHC 4872 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 4872 (KLR)

The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant's application for stay of execution pending a further appeal to the Court of Appeal, as Rule 22(1) of the Insurance (Insurance Appeals Tribunal) Rules makes the High Court's decision final on appeals from the Tribunal. The Appellant's attempt to pursue a further appeal was therefore incompetent, and the application for stay was struck out for want of jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court found that Messrs. G & G Advocates LLP, having not sought leave to come on record post-judgment as required by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, was improperly on record and lacked locus standi to file the applications....

Citation
[2025] KEHC 4872 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Britam General Insurance (K) Limited; Respondent: George Otieno Odinga; Respondent: Insurance Regulatory Authority
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 April 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E305 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Applications to Stay Execution/nullify Warrants Post Judgment
Outcome
Applications struck out for want of jurisdiction and for being filed by an advocate improperly on record; costs to the Respondents.
Judges
AC Mrima
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Execution of Decrees, Insurance Appeals, Advocate Procedure Post Judgment
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Jurisdiction of High Court Execution of Decrees Insurance Appeals Advocate Procedure Post Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Britam General Insurance (K) Limited

Appellant

George Otieno Odinga

Respondent

Insurance Regulatory Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Applications to Stay Execution/nullify Warrants Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of execution pending a further appeal to the Court of Appeal after its own judgment under Rule 22(1) of the Insurance (Insurance Appeals Tribunal) Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the firm of Messrs. G & G Advocates LLP was properly on record for the Appellant post-judgment as required by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  3. 3 Whether simultaneous modes of execution (bank guarantee and warrants of attachment) were lawfully pursued by the 1st Respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant's application for stay of execution pending a further appeal to the Court of Appeal, as Rule 22(1) of the Insurance (Insurance Appeals Tribunal) Rules makes the High Court's decision final on appeals from the Tribunal. The Appellant's attempt to pursue a further appeal was therefore incompetent, and the application for stay was struck out for want of jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court found that Messrs. G & G Advocates LLP, having not sought leave to come on record post-judgment as required by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, was improperly on record and lacked locus standi to file the applications....

Court Disposition

Applications struck out for want of jurisdiction and for being filed by an advocate improperly on record; costs to the Respondents.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 25th July 2024 is struck out for want of jurisdiction and for being filed by a firm of Advocates improperly on record.
  • The Notice of Motion dated 23rd January 2025 is struck out for being filed by a firm of Advocates improperly on record.