[2019] KEELC 1300 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 1300 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with its order requiring the filing of written submissions within the stipulated period. No submissions were filed on behalf of the applicant, amounting to non-prosecution of the application. The court held that compliance with procedural orders is mandatory, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 1300 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Flora Cherono; Defendant: Mary Njihia; Defendant: Grace Abeni; Defendant: Hamisi Sumba; Defendant: Waweru Nyaga; Defendant: Joseph Barasa Nyongesa; Defendant: The Land Registrar Trans-Nzoia; Defendant: Abubakar Tembula Change; Defendant: Kesogon Mosque Committee
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Land Case 169 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application struck out with costs
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Submissions Noncompliance, Security for Costs, Substantial Loss, Land Ownership
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Submissions Noncompliance Security for Costs Substantial Loss Land Ownership

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

Flora Cherono

Plaintiff

Mary Njihia

Defendant

Grace Abeni

Defendant

Hamisi Sumba

Defendant

Waweru Nyaga

Defendant

Joseph Barasa Nyongesa

Defendant

The Land Registrar Trans-Nzoia

Defendant

Abubakar Tembula Change

Defendant

Kesogon Mosque Committee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the court's directions on filing submissions.
  3. 3 Whether the application demonstrates substantial loss or provides security as required for stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with its order requiring the filing of written submissions within the stipulated period. No submissions were filed on behalf of the applicant, amounting to non-prosecution of the application. The court held that compliance with procedural orders is mandatory, and failure to do so justifies striking out the application. The court did not consider the merits of the application for stay of execution, as the threshold issue was the applicant's non-compliance with the court's directions. Consequently, the application for stay of execution pending appeal was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 27/8/2019 is struck out with costs to the respondent.