[2008] KEHC 3122 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 3122 (KLR)

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the Decree-Holder was without merit. Although the application for stay was brought under Sections 3, 3A, and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that Section 3A grants inherent power to prevent abuse of process and to ensure justice is done. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 3122 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Busuru Richard Marks t/a Busuru R.M. & Partners, Architects; Respondent: B. A. Omuse t/a Afro-Anglo Investments Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1300 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Notice of Motion for Stay of Sale
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the judgment debtor
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Abuse of Process, Preliminary Objection, Multiplicity of Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Abuse of Process Preliminary Objection Multiplicity of Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Busuru Richard Marks t/a Busuru R.M. & Partners, Architects

Applicant

B. A. Omuse t/a Afro-Anglo Investments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Notice of Motion for Stay of Sale

  1. 1 Whether the preliminary objection to the notice of motion for stay of sale is tenable under the cited provisions of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of sale constitutes an abuse of court process due to multiplicity of applications.
  3. 3 Whether the court has inherent power to prevent abuse of its process under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the Decree-Holder was without merit. Although the application for stay was brought under Sections 3, 3A, and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that Section 3A grants inherent power to prevent abuse of process and to ensure justice is done. The court noted that the Decree-Holder had advertised the suit property for sale in disregard of a subsisting stay order, which justified the Judgment Debtor's application for further stay. The court also observed that the multiplicity of applications, particularly by the Decree-Holder, served only to complicate and delay the proceedings, contrary to the interests of justice....

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the judgment debtor

Orders

  • The Decree-Holder's preliminary objection to the Judgment Debtor's Notice of Motion dated 25th July 2007 is dismissed with costs.