[1997] KECA 225 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 225 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds in the intended appeal and did not show that refusal to grant a stay would render the appeal nugatory. The Court also noted that a similar application had been determined recently on the same facts, rendering the present application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] KECA 225 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: George Gikubu Mbuthia; Appellant: Leah Wanjiru Mbuthia; Appellant: Peter Mbuthia Njuguna; Appellant: Palace Investments Limited; Respondent: Small Enterprises Finance Limited; Respondent: Receiver/Manager; Respondent: Palace Dry Cleaners Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 18 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Abuse of Process, Appeal Nugatory Test
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Abuse of Process Appeal Nugatory Test

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Gikubu Mbuthia

Appellant

Leah Wanjiru Mbuthia

Appellant

Peter Mbuthia Njuguna

Appellant

Palace Investments Limited

Appellant

Small Enterprises Finance Limited

Respondent

Receiver/Manager

Respondent

Palace Dry Cleaners Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated arguable grounds in the intended appeal.
  2. 2 Whether withholding the stay would render the intended appeal nugatory.
  3. 3 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds in the intended appeal and did not show that refusal to grant a stay would render the appeal nugatory. The Court also noted that a similar application had been determined recently on the same facts, rendering the present application frivolous and an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application for stay was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs assessed at KShs.4,000 to be paid within 14 days.