[2019] KEELC 3455 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3455 (KLR)

The court found that it retains jurisdiction under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules to entertain an application for stay, including oral applications. However, since a 14-day stay had already been granted at the time of the ruling and the appellant took no action within that period, there was no justification...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3455 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited; Respondent: Josephat Kirigia Aburi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 25 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Oral Application for Further Stay Pending Formal Application
Outcome
Application for further stay declined; matter marked as closed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Court Discretion, Functus Officio, Oral Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Court Discretion Functus Officio Oral Applications

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited

Appellant

Josephat Kirigia Aburi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Oral Application for Further Stay Pending Formal Application

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a further stay of execution after delivering its ruling.
  2. 2 Whether an oral application for stay is permissible under the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to a further stay after the lapse of the initial stay period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it retains jurisdiction under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules to entertain an application for stay, including oral applications. However, since a 14-day stay had already been granted at the time of the ruling and the appellant took no action within that period, there was no justification for granting a further stay. The court exercised its discretion against the appellant, holding that the opportunity to act had lapsed and no further orders of stay were warranted. The matter was therefore marked as closed.

Court Disposition

Application for further stay declined; matter marked as closed.

Orders

  • No further stay of execution is granted.
  • The matter is marked as closed.