[2019] KEHC 9524 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 9524 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not filed the intended appeal within the prescribed period and had not demonstrated any steps taken towards lodging an appeal or obtaining proceedings. The court held that it could not assume the applicant would pursue the appeal in the future, especially since two months had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 9524 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Tabitha Njiru N’Ringera; Applicant: Kaburu M’Mbutura
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 196 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Inhibition Pending Intended Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Probate and Administration, Stay of Execution, Inhibition Orders
Source Language
en
Family and Children Probate and Administration Stay of Execution Inhibition Orders

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

Tabitha Njiru N’Ringera

Respondent

Kaburu M’Mbutura

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Inhibition Pending Intended Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 29th November 2018 pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether an order of inhibition restraining dealings on LR Abothuguchi/Mariene/104 should issue pending hearing and determination of an intended appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not filed the intended appeal within the prescribed period and had not demonstrated any steps taken towards lodging an appeal or obtaining proceedings. The court held that it could not assume the applicant would pursue the appeal in the future, especially since two months had lapsed since the ruling and no notice of appeal had been filed. The court further observed that the application appeared to be a tactic to delay the respondent from enjoying the fruits of the judgment. Consequently, the application for stay of execution and inhibition was found to be without merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 15th January 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.