[2018] KEELC 3571 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3571 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff's application for stay of proceedings was misconceived because the suit had already been struck out and the only subsequent proceeding, the taxation of the bill of costs, had been concluded. There were no further proceedings before the court capable of being stayed, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3571 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: ERI Limited; Defendant: Equatorial Commercial Bank (formerly Southern Credit Banking Corporation Ltd); Defendant: Zainul Galib Velji
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 269 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Res Judicata, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Proceedings Res Judicata Appeals Process

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ERI Limited

Plaintiff

Equatorial Commercial Bank (formerly Southern Credit Banking Corporation Ltd)

Defendant

Zainul Galib Velji

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has made a reasonable case for an order of stay of proceedings pending appeal.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff's application for stay of proceedings was misconceived because the suit had already been struck out and the only subsequent proceeding, the taxation of the bill of costs, had been concluded. There were no further proceedings before the court capable of being stayed, and the application was not for stay of execution. Additionally, the Plaintiff had delayed for over a year in bringing the application without offering any explanation, which the court found to be inordinate. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to assess the merits of the pending appeal, as that was the preserve of the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Plaintiff’s notice of motion dated and filed on the 5th October 2017 is dismissed with costs.