[2017] KESC 50 (KLR)

[2017] KESC 50 (KLR)

The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay of execution because the substantive dispute was still pending before the High Court and had not been fully canvassed or determined in the superior courts. The Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KESC 50 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Community Uplift Ministries Inc; Respondent: Nathan Chesang Moson; Respondent: Josephine Chelangat; Respondent: Servanthood & Light Development Foundation
Court
Supreme Court
Court Station
Supreme Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 May 2017
Case Number
Application 10 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Receiver Appointment, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Receiver Appointment Interlocutory Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Community Uplift Ministries Inc

Applicant

Nathan Chesang Moson

Respondent

Josephine Chelangat

Respondent

Servanthood & Light Development Foundation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution to entertain an application for stay of execution where the substantive dispute is still pending before the High Court?
  2. 2 Should a stay of execution be granted against the Court of Appeal decision lifting the appointment of a Receiver Manager?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay of execution because the substantive dispute was still pending before the High Court and had not been fully canvassed or determined in the superior courts. The Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution is only triggered where the matter involves interpretation or application of the Constitution that has been determined by the Court of Appeal. Since the applicant's case did not meet this threshold, the application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The application dated 6th July 2016 is hereby dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.