[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant complied with the court's directions on filing submissions.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 169 OF 2013
FLORA CHERONO…...…..…..........................…PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
MARY NJIHIA………………………..……..........................1ST DEFENDANT
GRACE ABENI ……………………….…….........................2ND DEFENDANT
HAMISI SUMBA………………………..…..........................3RD DEFENDANT
WAWERU NYAGA……………………….........................…4TH DEFENDANT
JOSEPH BARASA NYONGESA………...…......................5TH DEFENDANT
THE LAND REGISTRAR TRANS-NZOIA...............……6TH DEFENDANT
ABUBAKAR TEMBULA CHANGE……....................…...7TH DEFENDANT
KESOGON MOSQUE COMMITTEE……........................8TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The application dated 27/8/2019 and filed in court on 28/8/2019 has been brought by the 3rd defendant. It seeks an order of stay of execution of the judgment and decree herein pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal in the Court of Appeal. He also prays for costs to be in the cause.
2. The applicant has brought the application under Section 3 and 3A Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 42(1) Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
3. The grounds on which the said application is made are that the judgment in this matter was read and delivered by this court on 31/7/2019and the applicant was dissatisfied with the said judgment; that the respondent intends to execute the said judgment; that the 3rd applicant has preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal and has already filed a notice of appeal; that if a stay of execution is not granted substantial loss may result and render the appeal nugatory to the applicant; that the appeal has reasonable chances of success; that there is no delay in bringing this application and no one shall be prejudiced if the orders sought are granted.
4. The application is supported an affidavit of the 4th applicant dated 27/8/2019 which amplifies the above grounds.
5. The plaintiff/respondent filed grounds of opposition on 30/9/2019 opposing the application. The grounds the plaintiff relied on are that the application does not satisfy the requirements of granting of stay pending appeal in that no security has been provided and no substantial loss has been demonstrated; that the application is a ruse to protract this matter further by denying the responding from recovering his property and enjoying the fruits of her judgment; that the suit land is registered in respondent’s name and that the applicant has not demonstrated that he has an arguable appeal. It is further stated by the respondent that the notice of appeal indicates that the applicant intends to appeal from the judgment of Hon. Justice Yano which is not the judgment delivered herein.
6. On the 3/10/2019 this court ordered the applicant to file submissions within 7 days and the respondent to respond within 7 days after service. The respondent filed his submissions on 14/10/2019. I have perused through the court record and found no submissions filed on behalf of the applicant.
7. Where a court has ordered written submissions to be filed in an application and no oral submissions have been provided for that is the manner of proceedings which should dispose of the application and no other. If an applicant does not file submissions she should be considered not to have prosecuted the application in question. I find that to be the case in this matter as no submissions has been filed by the applicant. The applicant is in violation of the order of court issued on 3/10/2019. For that reason the application dated 27/8/2019 is struck out with costs.
Dated, signedanddeliveredatKitale on this 24thday ofOctober, 2019.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
24/10/2019
Coram:
Before - Mwangi Njoroge, Judge
Court Assistant - Picoty
Mr. Onyancha for 3rd defendant/applicant
Mr. Kuria for 6th defendant
COURT
Ruling read in open court.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
24/10/2019