[2016] KEHC 2444 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent had not established any justifiable grounds for stay of execution of the decree issued by the Co-operative Tribunal. The existence of a complaint before the Law Society of Kenya against the applicant does not provide a legal basis for staying execution. The respondent had neither...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2444 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Gilbert Okero Ombachi t/a G.O. Ombachi & Co Advocates; Respondent: Isaac Mburu Njuguna
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 222 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the applicant
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Decree Enforcement, Review and Appeal Procedure
- 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
Gilbert Okero Ombachi t/a G.O. Ombachi & Co Advocates
Applicant
Isaac Mburu Njuguna
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent has established sufficient grounds for stay of execution of the decree pending determination of a complaint before the Law Society of Kenya.
- 2 Whether the existence of a complaint before the Law Society of Kenya is a valid ground to stay execution of a decree issued by the Co-operative Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent had not established any justifiable grounds for stay of execution of the decree issued by the Co-operative Tribunal. The existence of a complaint before the Law Society of Kenya against the applicant does not provide a legal basis for staying execution. The respondent had neither sought a review nor filed an appeal against the decree. The court emphasized that the proper procedure for challenging a decree is through review or appeal, not by seeking a stay based on unrelated complaints. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the applicant
Orders
- The respondent's application for stay of execution is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
MISC APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2015
GILBERT OKERO OMBACHIT/A G.O. OMBACHI & CO ADV........APPLICANT
VERSUS
ISAAC MBURU NJUGUNA............................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant's application seeks an order to stay execution proceedings in this matter pending the hearing and determination of a complaint that is pending against the applicant in the Law Society of Kenya. He has raised four grounds in support of his application. In ground 1, he has stated that there is pending in the Law Society of Kenya, a complaint against the applicant. In ground 2 the applicant has stated that this instant application should be allowed in order to stop the decree from being executed against him and unless it is allowed, it is likely to cause injustice to him.
2. In addition to the grounds of opposition, the applicant has anchored his application in his supporting affidavit. In that affidavit, he has deponed to an eleven paragraph affidavit. Among the major paragraphs are that he is opposed to the notice to show cause dated 8th June 2016, in which the applicant is seeking to execute the decree by attaching his rice holdings. He has further deponed that he does not owe the applicant any money because the decretal amount, which arose from the Co-operative Tribunal case No. 40 of 2009 was paid to the applicant who was his advocate on record. He has further deponed that the applicant refused to release the money to him, as a result of which he filed a complaint with the Law Society of Kenya. It is for these reasons amongst others that he seeks a stay of execution of the decree issued against him pending the determination of the complaint against the applicant by the Law Society of Kenya.
3. The applicant has filed a replying affidavit, which contains 12 paragraphs in opposition to the application. He has deponed that the application is an abuse of the court process intended to obstruct and delay justice. He has also deponed that there is no case pending against him before the Law Society of Kenya. He has further deponed that he adequately responded to the complaint raised against him by the respondent and a result of which there is no complaint pending before the Law Society against him. He has also deponed that certificate of costs in the sum of Kshs 61,425/- was issued in his favour against the respondent on 11th December 2011. Following the issuance of the said certificate, the applicant served the respondent with an application for its execution to which the respondent stated that he did not wish to have his rice holding No. 253 Unit T.19 attached as the same was in the process of being sub-divided amongst his children. Finally, the applicant has deponed that this application is meant to delay justice and to deny the applicant the fruits of his judgement.
4. I have considered the affidavit evidence of both parties. I find that there is in place a decree in favour of the applicant to be executed against the respondent. This decree was issued by the Co-operative Tribunal. In the circumstances, the reasons advanced by the respondent seeking stay of execution of that decree are not justifiable. The proper procedure for challenging a decree of a court is either by way of review or by way of an appeal. The applicant has neither sought a review of the decree nor has he appealed against it. Even if there was such a complaint, that is no ground for seeking to stay the execution proceedings.
5. The respondent's application is hereby dismissed with costs to the applicant.
RULING DELIVERED,DATEDandSIGNED in open court at EMBU this 12th day of OCTOBER,2016.
In the absence of the applicant and in the presence of the respondent.
Court clerk Njue
J.M. BWONWONGA
JUDGE
12. 10. 16