[2015] KECA 13 (KLR)
The court granted leave to the applicant to withdraw both the application for stay of execution and the notice of appeal, as the application had been overtaken by events. Despite the applicant's argument that the respondents were not entitled to costs due to lack of service, the court exercised its discretion and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KECA 13 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daudi Kiptugen; Respondent: Commissioner of Lands; Respondent: Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Heldo Foodstuff Limited; Respondent: District Land Registrar, Eldoret
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 247 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Withdrawal of Stay Application and Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application and notice of appeal withdrawn; costs awarded to respondents.
- Judges
- DK Musinga
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Application, Costs Award, Stay of Execution, Land Disputes
- 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
Daudi Kiptugen
Applicant
Commissioner of Lands
Respondent
Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Heldo Foodstuff Limited
Respondent
District Land Registrar, Eldoret
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Withdrawal of Stay Application and Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to withdraw the application for stay and the notice of appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondents are entitled to costs upon withdrawal of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court granted leave to the applicant to withdraw both the application for stay of execution and the notice of appeal, as the application had been overtaken by events. Despite the applicant's argument that the respondents were not entitled to costs due to lack of service, the court exercised its discretion and ordered the applicant to bear the costs of the application, considering that the respondents had been served with a hearing notice and attended court. The withdrawal was marked under Rule 52 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Court Disposition
Application and notice of appeal withdrawn; costs awarded to respondents.
Orders
- Leave granted to withdraw the application dated 6th September, 2013 and the notice of appeal.
- Application and notice of appeal marked as withdrawn under Rule 52 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT ELDORET
(CORAM: D. K. MUSINGA, JA (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 247 OF 2013
BETWEEN
DAUDI KIPTUGEN .........................................................................APPLICANT
AND
COMMISSIONER OF LANDS …….…………....……......1ST RESPONDENT
CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR, NAIROBI……......................2ND RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ..................................3RD RESPONDENT
HELDO FOODSTUFF LIMITED…...................................4TH RESPONDENT
DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR, ELDORET…..…...…..5TH RESPONDENT
(Being an application for stay of execution of orders issued on 19th August, 2013 by honourable S. Munyao pending hearing and determination of an appeal against the ruling of the Honourable Justice S. Munyao delivered on 23rd day of August, 2013
in
ELC NO. 787 OF 2012)
*******************
ORDER
Mr Korir, learned counsel for the applicant, has sought leave to withdraw the application dated 6th September, 2013 that was scheduled to be heard this morning. On 4th September, 2013 he had filed a notice of appeal which he also wishes to withdraw. The applicant's counsel had not served today's application but yesterday,26th May,2015 he filed and served a notice of withdrawal of the application. In the circumstances, he does not think that the respondent is entitled to any costs.
Mr Mbeja, learned counsel holding brief for M/S Komen Kipchirchir & Company, who are on record for the respondent, has no objection to the withdrawal of the application and the notice of appeal but prays for costs of the application. He however concedes that they had not been served with the application that was set to be heard today but they had been served with a hearing notice. That is why he has attended court.
I have considered the brief submissions by counsel. I grant leave to the applicant to withdraw the application dated 6th September, 2013 as well as the notice of appeal as the application has been overtaken by events.The same is now marked as withdrawn under rule 52 of this Court's Rules. The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Dated at Eldoret this 27th day of May, 2015.
D. K. MUSINGA
……………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of t
DEPUTY REGISTRAR