[2011] KEHC 1889 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, Julius Gatobu M’Itwamwari, failed to satisfy the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that he would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, nor did he...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1889 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Julius Gatobu M’Itwamwari; Respondent: Esther Nkatha M’Arimi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 167 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- JW Lessit
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Probate and Administration, Substantial Loss, Grant of Letters of Administration
- 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
Julius Gatobu M’Itwamwari
Applicant
Esther Nkatha M’Arimi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2).
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, Julius Gatobu M’Itwamwari, failed to satisfy the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that he would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, nor did he provide evidence of any imminent eviction or threat thereof. The court also considered its earlier finding that the applicant had fraudulently obtained a grant and that the respondent had been wrongly kept out of ownership of her father’s estate for an extended period. The application for stay was therefore found to be without merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The summons dated 14th December 2010 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to Esther Nkatha M’Arimi.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
SUCCESSION
·Stay pending appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 167 OF 1993
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF M’ITWAMWARI M’RAIJI (DECEASED)
JULIUS GATOBU M’ITWAMWARI …………………………….. PETITIONER
VERSUS
ESTHER NKATHA M’ARIMI ……………………………………. OBJECTOR
RULING
By this court’s judgment, of 22nd October 2010, the court found that Julius Gatobu M’Itwamwari was not a son of the deceased and was therefore not entitled to a share of the deceased estate. The court made a finding that Julius had fraudulently obtained a grant in this matter which he had later confirmed. The court in that judgment cancelled the titles registered in the name of Julius and ordered that the deceased property be registered in the names of the two daughters of the deceased whom one of them is Esther Nkatha M’Arimi. Julius on 3rd November 2010 filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal against this court’s judgment. By his application dated 14th December 2010, Julius seeks stay pending his appeal before the Court of Appeal. Order 42 rule 6 (2) provides the conditions which are to be met by an applicant seeking stay pending appeal. That rule is in the following terms:-
“(2) No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless-
(a) the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and
(b) such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.”
Julius deponed in his affidavit in support of his application that Esther Nkatha M’Arimi the objector herein had threatened through notice to evict him from the suit property. He however did not annex such notice of eviction in his affidavit in support. He further stated that he had extensively developed his portion of land. Esther in opposing the application stated that the applicant is intent on denying her the enjoyment of the fruits of her judgment. She stated that Julius occupies half of the land whilst she occupies the other half. That half that she occupies is the portion she wishes to be registered as an owner following the judgment of this court. She denied that she intends to evict Julius. Bearing in mind the finding made by this court by its judgment of 22nd October 2010, where the court found that Julius by use of false information petitioned for grant in this estate without informing Esther a daughter of the deceased. Also considering that Esther has been wrongly been kept out of ownership of her father’s estate since his death in May 1995. I find that Julius is not deserving of the orders that he seeks. Julius has also failed to show that he will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted bearing in mind that Esther wishes to be registered in her name the half of her deceased’s father’s land. I find that the summons dated 14th December 2010 is without merit and is dismissed with costs being awarded to Esther Nkatha M’Arimi.
Judgment by:-
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Dated, signed and delivered at Meru this 21st day of July 2011.
J. LESIIT
JUDGE