[2021] KEELC 4011 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 4011 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for not lodging the appeal within the stipulated 30 days, as he did not demonstrate that he requested proceedings or provide a certificate of delay. The court further held that since the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, there was no positive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 4011 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Francis Kanake Nguthari; Respondent: Karonoriu Baimoki; Respondent: DLASO Tigania West/East District; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Dismissal of Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Stay of Execution Appeals Process Dismissal of Suit

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Kanake Nguthari

Appellant

Karonoriu Baimoki

Respondent

DLASO Tigania West/East District

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file an appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution should be granted in respect of the ruling delivered on 21.11.2019.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for not lodging the appeal within the stipulated 30 days, as he did not demonstrate that he requested proceedings or provide a certificate of delay. The court further held that since the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, there was no positive order capable of being stayed, as the dismissal constituted a negative order with no executable decree. Consequently, the application for extension of time and stay of execution lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.