[2023] KEHC 25947 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 25947 (KLR)

The court found that the application lacked a substantive prayer for stay of execution, which is a mandatory requirement for such relief to be granted. Citing established legal principles and precedent, the court held that it cannot issue an order for stay in a vacuum. Consequently, the notice of motion was found to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 25947 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Directline Assurance Co. Limited; Respondent: Josephine Charo Unda
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E056 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Seeking Stay of Execution and Striking Out of Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
SM Githinji
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Striking Out Suit, Decretal Sum Settlement, Substantive Prayer Requirement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Striking Out Suit Decretal Sum Settlement Substantive Prayer Requirement

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Directline Assurance Co. Limited

Applicant

Josephine Charo Unda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Seeking Stay of Execution and Striking Out of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution is merited in the absence of a substantive prayer.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be struck out given the alleged full settlement of the decretal sum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application lacked a substantive prayer for stay of execution, which is a mandatory requirement for such relief to be granted. Citing established legal principles and precedent, the court held that it cannot issue an order for stay in a vacuum. Consequently, the notice of motion was found to be misconceived and incompetent, leading to its dismissal with costs. The court did not address the merits of the alleged settlement or the request to strike out the suit, as the absence of a substantive prayer was dispositive.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 21st June, 2023 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.