[2021] KEELC 687 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 687 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate, through empirical or documentary evidence, the substantial loss she would suffer if the stay was not extended. The applicant did not offer any security for due performance, despite continuing to derive income from the suit property. The court noted that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 687 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Fatuma Mohamud Mohammed Mire; Defendant: Fridah Makandi Nteere (Suing as the Legal Representative of Japhet Nteere Mwendwa, Deceased)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 260 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Substitution of Parties, Res Judicata, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Substitution of Parties Res Judicata Security for Due Performance

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatuma Mohamud Mohammed Mire

Plaintiff

Fridah Makandi Nteere (Suing as the Legal Representative of Japhet Nteere Mwendwa, Deceased)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for further extension of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application is res judicata in light of previous similar applications.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has offered adequate security for due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate, through empirical or documentary evidence, the substantial loss she would suffer if the stay was not extended. The applicant did not offer any security for due performance, despite continuing to derive income from the suit property. The court noted that the applicant had not taken reasonable steps to prosecute the appeal, including failing to file a supplementary affidavit as ordered and not providing evidence of an application for substitution at the Court of Appeal. The court further held that the application was identical to a previous one and thus was res judicata. There was no new material or extenuating circumstance to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 30.7.2021 for extension of stay is dismissed with costs to the respondent.