[2003] KEHC 175 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 175 (KLR)

The High Court determined that it does not have jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Notice of Appeal filed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Court of Appeal Rules; such jurisdiction is exclusively conferred on the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the preliminary objection on this ground was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] KEHC 175 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Centurion Contractors & Agencies (K) Ltd; Defendant: Northlake Nurseries Limited; Defendant: Jonah Stephen Ng’ang’a
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 356 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Preliminary Objection, Notice of Appeal, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Preliminary Objection Notice of Appeal Jurisdiction of High Court

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centurion Contractors & Agencies (K) Ltd

Plaintiff

Northlake Nurseries Limited

Defendant

Jonah Stephen Ng’ang’a

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the validity of a Notice of Appeal under Rule 74(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the consent orders requiring deposit of security for costs were stayed by subsequent orders of the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court determined that it does not have jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Notice of Appeal filed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Court of Appeal Rules; such jurisdiction is exclusively conferred on the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the preliminary objection on this ground was overruled. On the second issue, the court found that the stay orders issued by Mr. Justice Onyango Otieno on 6th March 2003 effectively stayed the execution of the judgment and, by extension, the consent orders requiring the applicant to deposit security for costs. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to be heard on the substantive application for stay. The preliminary objection was...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.