[2016] KEHC 4011 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant's failure to cite the legal provisions under which the application for stay of execution was brought was fatal. The court emphasized that statutory provisions are necessary to invoke its jurisdiction, and without such invocation, the court is not properly moved. As a result, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 4011 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Silas Odera Indakwa; Respondent: Emmanuel Odera Omumasaba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 539 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeals in Succession Matters, Jurisdiction, Failure to Cite Law
- 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
Silas Odera Indakwa
Applicant
Emmanuel Odera Omumasaba
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether failure to cite the legal provisions under which the application is brought renders the application incompetent.
- 2 Whether the court's jurisdiction was properly invoked by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant's failure to cite the legal provisions under which the application for stay of execution was brought was fatal. The court emphasized that statutory provisions are necessary to invoke its jurisdiction, and without such invocation, the court is not properly moved. As a result, the application was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 12th August 2015 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LATE INDAKWA ODERA – DECEASED
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.539 OF 2006
EMMANUEL ODERA OMUMASABA …………………..RESPONDENT
VERSUS
SILAS ODERA INDAKWA …………………PETITIONER/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
Application
By the Notice of Motion dated `12th August 2015 the Applicant seeks for Orders of stay of execution of the Orders made on 29th May 2015 pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal. The application is based on the grounds that the Applicant was dissatisfied by the ruling delivered on the 29th May 2015 and has filed an appeal to challenge the said ruling. He contends that unless the Order sought is granted, the Respondent may go ahead and execute before the hearing and determination of the appeal.
The application is supported by the Applicant’s affidavit where amongst other things he states that the intended appeal is meritorious and that unless the Orders sought are granted the appeal will become of academic importance only. He also says that his appeal has high chances of success.
Response
The application is opposed by Emmanuel Odera Omumasaba the Respondent who filed a replying affidavit on the 5th of November 2015. He depones therein that the application is incompetent, frivolous and vexatious and amounts to an abuse of the Court process. He adds that the application has been filed after undue delay and that the Applicant has not filed any appeal capable of being heard and if one has been filed the same is a non-starter for having been filed without leave of the Court. He holds the view that the Applicant’s failure to invoke the provisions of the law allowing him to file the instant application has prejudiced him as he is unable to respond accordingly. Lastly that this Court’s jurisdiction has not been invoked by the Applicant.
Determination
This Court notes that the Applicant has failed to invoke the provisions of the law under which he has moved this Court. Does failure to cite the provisions of the law under which an application is brought render the application incompetent?
The answer to the above question is in the affirmative. Failure to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction is fatal to the application and it means that the Court has not been moved at all. See KARIUKI –VS- COUNTY COUNCIL OF KIAMBU 1985-1998 1 E.A 90where the Court held that Statutory provisions invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. The application therefore lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Orders accordingly.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed in open Court at Kakamega this 30th day of June 2016.
RUTH N. SITATI
J U D G E
In the presence of:
Mr. Munyendo for Ombito (present) Applicant
Present in Person - Respondent
Mr. Okoiti - Court Assistant