[2017] KEHC 5279 (KLR)
The application for stay of judgment was dismissed because it was procedurally defective, having been brought under non-existent or irrelevant rules. No formal application for consolidation of the appeals was ever made, despite multiple opportunities. The court found that the real reason for the application was the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5279 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Chemelil Sugar Company Limited; Appellant: Silas Omondi; Respondent: Silvanus Olale
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 108 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the appellants/respondents
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Judgment, Consolidation of Appeals, Court Discretion, Costs Award
- 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
Chemelil Sugar Company Limited
Appellant
Silas Omondi
Appellant
Silvanus Olale
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of judgment is merited in the absence of a formal application for consolidation of appeals.
- 2 Whether the application is properly grounded in law and procedure.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant stay where the applicant's counsel was absent without sufficient explanation.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for stay of judgment was dismissed because it was procedurally defective, having been brought under non-existent or irrelevant rules. No formal application for consolidation of the appeals was ever made, despite multiple opportunities. The court found that the real reason for the application was the absence of counsel at the hearing, for which no adequate explanation was provided. The court emphasized that its discretion cannot be exercised in favour of a party who is not candid and does not come to court with clean hands. As such, the application lacked merit both procedurally and substantively, and was dismissed with costs to the appellants/respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the appellants/respondents
Orders
- The application dated 29th March 2017 is dismissed with costs to the appellants/respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2012
CHEMELIL SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED.....1ST APPELLANT
SILAS OMONDI..............................................2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
SILVANUS OLALE.......................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
The Notice of Motion dated 29th March 2017 seeks to stay judgment in High Court Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2012 on the ground that the same was to be heard together with High Court Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2012. The application is supported by the affidavit of Kiberenge N. Foustine sworn on 29th March 2017 in which he deposes inter alia that the appeal arises from the judgment of Nyando Court in PMCC No. 246 of 2000 which comprised of the other matters and where the defence judgment was adopted in the other; That, thereafter the appellants filed two appeals for consistency. Further that the Advocates for the parties held a conversation that the two appeals be heard together and that it was impossible for him to attend Court on the day the appeal was scheduled to be heard. She deposes that the two appeals ought to be consolidated and heard together and that this application ought to be allowed for that reason.
In the replying affidavit Counsel for the Respondent/Appellants disputes that there was an agreement to take out the appeal from the cause list for purposes of consolidating the same. She also deposes that the issue of consolidation was never brought up even when directions were taken.
I have considered the application carefully and it is my finding that the same has no merit. Firstly, the application is defective, for being brought under rules some of which are non existent and others not relevant at all. Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules has no rules 22 and 52 whereas Order 10 rule 11 provides for setting aside judgment but not arrest of judgment and Order 40 rules 1, 2, 3 (3) of the Rules provides for injunctions for injunctions which is not what the application here seeks.
On the merits, no order or even application for consolidation was made despite several appearances by the Advocates. It is my finding that the real reason for this application, which is not even provided for in the Civil Procedure Act and rules but which I believe the Court would have discretion to grant under its inherent poser under Section 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, is that the appeal proceeded in the absence of Counsel for the Respondent/Applicant. This Court cannot however exercise its discretion in favour of an Advocate who decides to be less than candid. She has not told this Court why she did not attend the hearing though duly served. She has not come to Court with clean hands and accordingly this application is dismissed with costs to the Appellants/Respondent. It is so ordered.
E. N. MAINA
JUDGE
25/5/2017
Ruling delivered in open Court in the presence of Mr. M. M. Omondi for the Applicant
Court Assistant – Serah Sidera