[2018] KEELC 3809 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not denied owing the taxed costs and had been aware of the proceedings since 2014. The applicant's absence was previously explained as attending to a boundary dispute, which the court found unsatisfactory. The court determined that the orders of 15th May, 2017, were not made...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3809 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Karanja Mashua; Respondent: Jonah Mzee Orumoi; Respondent: Rose Tito Metuo; Respondent: Joseph Parsane Orumoi; Respondent: Julius Sarumue Orumoi; Respondent: The Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 89 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Warrant of Attachment and Stay Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Review of Orders, Stay of Execution, Warrants of Attachment, Taxation of Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Charles Karanja Mashua
Applicant
Jonah Mzee Orumoi
Respondent
Rose Tito Metuo
Respondent
Joseph Parsane Orumoi
Respondent
Julius Sarumue Orumoi
Respondent
The Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Warrant of Attachment and Stay Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order issuing a warrant of attachment and sale should be reviewed, varied, or set aside.
- 2 Whether there should be a stay of execution of the order pending determination of the application.
- 3 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing before the issuance of the warrant of attachment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not denied owing the taxed costs and had been aware of the proceedings since 2014. The applicant's absence was previously explained as attending to a boundary dispute, which the court found unsatisfactory. The court determined that the orders of 15th May, 2017, were not made without hearing the applicant, as his counsel was present and given an opportunity to explain. The applicant failed to provide a good reason for setting aside the Deputy Registrar's orders or for granting a stay of execution. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application, emphasizing that the applicant had ample opportunity to settle the debt and participate in...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 16th May, 2017 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 89 OF 2009
CHARLES KARANJA MASHUA................JUDGMENT DEBTOR/APPLICANT
VERSUS
JONAH MZEE ORUMOI...........................1ST DECREE HOLDER/RESPONDENT
ROSE TITO METUO.................................2ND DECREE HOLDER/RESPONDENT
JOSEPH PARSANE ORUMOI..................3RD DECREE HOLDER/RESPONDENT
JULIUS SARUMUE ORUMOI.................4TH DECREE HOLDER/RESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...................5TH DECREE HOLDER/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. In the Application dated 16th May, 2017, the Judgment debtor/Applicant is seeking for the following orders:
a. That the order issued on the 15th May, 2017 by the Deputy Registrar issuing warrant of attachment of sale for Loitokitok/Olkaria/254 be reviewed, varied/or set aside.
b. That there be stay of execution of the order issued by the Deputy Registrar on the 15th May, 2017 pending determination of this Application.
c. That the costs of this Application be provided for.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Notice to show cause issued on 6th November, 2014 was heard and determined in the absence of the Judgment debtor; that the Judgment debtor is indisposed and is currently undergoing specialized treatment in the United Kingdom and that the Judgment debtor intends to settle the debt.
3. In response, the Decree holders’ advocate deponed that the Ruling on Taxation of Costs payable by the 1st to the 4th Defendants by the Plaintiff was made on 24th September, 2014; that the Plaintiff has had more than three (3) years to settle the costs and that the fact that the Plaintiff had travelled to the United Kingdom cannot be a reason for setting aside the order that was given on 15th May, 2017.
4. The Applicant has not denied that he owes the Defendants the taxed costs. The record shows that when the matter came up for the Notice to show cause why execution should not issue on 16th March, 2017, the Applicant’s counsel informed the court that the Applicant could not attend court because he was attending to a boundary dispute. The court found the reason given by the Applicant’s advocate to be unsatisfactory and ordered for the warrant of attachment to issue.
5. It is therefore not true that the orders of 15th May, 2017 were given by the Deputy Registrar without hearing the Applicant. Indeed, the Applicant has had since the year 2014 to pay up the taxed amount which he has failed to do. By the time the Plaintiff travelled out of the country, he was aware that the Notice to show cause was to be heard on 15th May, 2017.
6. In the circumstances, I find that no good reason has been given as to why I should set aside the orders of the Deputy Registrar of 15th May, 2017.
7. For those reasons, I dismiss the Application dated 16th May, 2017 with costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE