[2018] KEELC 4845 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4845 (KLR)

The court found that it had already delivered its final judgment on 29/11/2016, rendering it functus officio. As such, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay of execution or to grant any further orders in the matter. The court agreed with the respondent that the case was concluded and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4845 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Erasmas Sasaka Wachilonga; Defendant: Simon Wachilonga Toli; Defendant: Margaret K. Wachilonga; Defendant: Magdalene Mbayisi; Defendant: Everlyne Nekesa Wachilonga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 38 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Post Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
SN Mukunya
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Functus Officio, Jurisdiction of Court, Execution of Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Functus Officio Jurisdiction of Court Execution of Judgment

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erasmas Sasaka Wachilonga

Plaintiff

Simon Wachilonga Toli

Defendant

Margaret K. Wachilonga

Defendant

Magdalene Mbayisi

Defendant

Everlyne Nekesa Wachilonga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Post Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution after judgment has been delivered and the matter concluded.
  2. 2 Whether the court is functus officio and thus unable to entertain the present application for stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it had already delivered its final judgment on 29/11/2016, rendering it functus officio. As such, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay of execution or to grant any further orders in the matter. The court agreed with the respondent that the case was concluded and the statutory provisions relied upon by the applicant were inapplicable. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.