[2015] KEHC 4764 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 4764 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had satisfied the requirements for the grant of a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants demonstrated that they would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, as they risked being rendered homeless and their intended appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 4764 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Gulzar Abdul Wais; Applicant: Vasmin Rashid Ganatra; Applicant: Tario Abdul Rashid
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 290 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal in Succession Cause
Outcome
Application for stay of execution granted.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Succession Estates, Will and Testament, Dependants Rights
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Stay of Execution Succession Estates Will and Testament Dependants Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulzar Abdul Wais

Respondent

Vasmin Rashid Ganatra

Applicant

Tario Abdul Rashid

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal in Succession Cause

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the conditions for granting an order of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether substantial loss would result to the applicants if the stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had satisfied the requirements for the grant of a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants demonstrated that they would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, as they risked being rendered homeless and their intended appeal rendered nugatory. The application was filed expeditiously, within three days of the judgment, showing no unreasonable delay. The court held that procedural objections raised by the respondent regarding compliance with the Court of Appeal Rules did not outweigh the need to preserve the applicants' right of appeal and prevent substantial loss. The court emphasized that its role...

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution granted.

Orders

  • An order of temporary stay of execution from judgment delivered on 8th July 2014 is granted pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal, which must be filed within 60 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Status quo to be maintained over house on land parcel No. Ntima/Igoki/5685 pending filing and determination of the intended appeal, to be filed within 60 days; in default, the order shall be vacated.