[2012] KEHC 2318 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 2318 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not filed an appeal and only had a pending application for leave to appeal out of time. As such, there was no basis for invoking Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules to seek a stay of execution. The application for stay was therefore premature and could not be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 2318 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Harrison W.M. Maguh; Respondent: Rung'eto F.C.S. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 38 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Premature Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Out of Time Premature Application

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

Harrison W.M. Maguh

Applicant

Rung'eto F.C.S. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary stay of execution pending hearing of the application for leave to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay is premature in the absence of a filed appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not filed an appeal and only had a pending application for leave to appeal out of time. As such, there was no basis for invoking Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules to seek a stay of execution. The application for stay was therefore premature and could not be entertained. The court emphasized that the applicant should first pursue and obtain leave to appeal before seeking a stay of execution. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 8/7/2011 is dismissed with costs.