[2020] KEELC 2724 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2724 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed by an advocate who had not properly come on record as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the orders sought to be stayed had already been implemented, specifically the fixing of land boundaries, and the applicants did not controvert...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2724 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Chemoiwa Ole Sayielel; Applicant: Marikulmuran Ene Sayialel; Respondent: Joseph Santian; Respondent: Dominic Nuna Santian; Respondent: Richard NchuuChu Santian
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 323 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Advocate on Record, Appeal Procedure, Implementation of Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Stay of Execution Advocate on Record Appeal Procedure Implementation of Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chemoiwa Ole Sayielel

Applicant

Marikulmuran Ene Sayialel

Applicant

Joseph Santian

Respondent

Dominic Nuna Santian

Respondent

Richard NchuuChu Santian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution is properly before the court given the advocate's status.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of execution has been overtaken by events due to implementation of the court's orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed by an advocate who had not properly come on record as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the orders sought to be stayed had already been implemented, specifically the fixing of land boundaries, and the applicants did not controvert this fact. As such, the application was both procedurally defective and substantively moot, leading to its dismissal with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 17/1/19 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.