[2018] KEELC 2096 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2096 (KLR)

The Court found that the orders made on 23/2/18 did not create any executable or enforceable obligation against the Plaintiff. The prior order of 25/2/16 had stayed all proceedings in the suit until the determination of previously instituted cases concerning the same subject land. Since there was no evidence that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2096 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Grace Ruguru Mwangi; Defendant: Francis Mwangi Kanyuru; Defendant: Joseph Mwangi Maina; Defendant: Siphira Wambui Ndaire; Defendant: Mary Wangari Maina; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar, Murang'a; Defendant: Peter Mwangi Njuguna
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Muranga
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 167 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendants
Judges
BC Koech
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Injunctions, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
en
Land and Property Joinder of Parties Injunctions Stay of Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Ruguru Mwangi

Plaintiff

Francis Mwangi Kanyuru

Defendant

Joseph Mwangi Maina

Defendant

Siphira Wambui Ndaire

Defendant

Mary Wangari Maina

Defendant

Chief Land Registrar, Murang'a

Defendant

Peter Mwangi Njuguna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the orders made by the Court on 23/2/18 are capable of execution or enforcement by the Defendants against the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a stay of execution of the orders made on 23/2/18.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the orders made on 23/2/18 did not create any executable or enforceable obligation against the Plaintiff. The prior order of 25/2/16 had stayed all proceedings in the suit until the determination of previously instituted cases concerning the same subject land. Since there was no evidence that those earlier suits had been resolved or that the stay had been lifted, the Court had not issued any order capable of enforcement by the Defendants. Consequently, the Plaintiff's application for a stay of execution was without merit, as there was nothing to stay. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendants

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's application dated 7/3/18 is dismissed with costs to the Defendants.