[2011] KEHC 2310 (KLR)
The court found that the application for review was not premised on any of the statutory grounds under Order 45 rule 1B, as there was neither discovery of new evidence, nor error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason. Furthermore, there was no order issued on 20th June 2011 capable of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2310 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Godfrey Murimi; Appellant: Francis Kamau Mureithi; Appellant: Lucy Nduta Kiarie; Respondent: Micere Gatimu; Respondent: Stepphen Muthigani; Respondent: Fredrick Muthike; Respondent: Josphat Chomba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 64 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Interim Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Interim stay granted on condition of deposit; application for review dismissed; costs to respondents.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Stay of Execution, Interim Orders
- 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
Godfrey Murimi
Appellant
Francis Kamau Mureithi
Appellant
Lucy Nduta Kiarie
Appellant
Micere Gatimu
Respondent
Stepphen Muthigani
Respondent
Fredrick Muthike
Respondent
Josphat Chomba
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review and Interim Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for review meets the requirements under Order 45 rule 1B of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether there exists an order issued on 20th June 2011 that can be reviewed.
- 3 Whether interim stay should be granted pending hearing of the substantive application for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for review was not premised on any of the statutory grounds under Order 45 rule 1B, as there was neither discovery of new evidence, nor error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason. Furthermore, there was no order issued on 20th June 2011 capable of being reviewed. However, recognizing the applicants' request for interim stay pending the hearing of the substantive application for stay, and noting the 1st respondent's lack of objection to a deposit, the court exercised its discretion to grant interim stay on condition that the applicants deposit the decretory sum of KShs.1,356,928 within 7 days. Costs of the application were...
Court Disposition
Interim stay granted on condition of deposit; application for review dismissed; costs to respondents.
Orders
- Applicants to deposit KShs.1,356,928 within 7 days from the date of the ruling as a condition for interim stay.
- Applicants to pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2011
GODFREY MURIMI ………………………..……… 1ST APPELLANT/APPLICANT
FRANCIS KAMAU MUREITHI……………....………2ND APPELANT/APPLICANT
LUCY NDUTA KIARIE…………………....………..3RD APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
MICERE GATIMU ………………………..……..……………….1ST RESPONDENT
STEPPHEN MUTHIGANI………………....…………………….2ND RESPONDENT
FREDRICK MUTHIKE………….………………………………3RD RESPONDENT
JOSPHAT CHOMBA……….……………………………………4TH RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This application for review is not premised on any of the grounds under Order 45 rule 1B, that is:
(a)the discovery of new and important mater or evidence;
(b)mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(c)any other sufficient reason.
Secondly there is no order that was issued on 20th June 2011 that can be subject of review.
If the Applicants seek an interim order while awaiting the hearing of the substantive application for stay, which application should be heard on 19th July 2011, I ask that they deposit KShs.1,356,928/= which is the decretory sum for which execution was proceeding in the subordinate court before the application was filed here. I notice that the 1st Respondent in paragraph 8 of the replying affidavit is not averse to such a deposit. The amount to be deposited within 7 days from today.
The Applicants have to that extent been indulged and shall therefore pay the costs of this application.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2011.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE