[2015] KEHC 2088 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 2088 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of the existence of Thika CMC ELC No. 31 of 2014, as no pleadings or documents relating to the alleged suit were attached to the supporting affidavits. Without proof of the pending suit, the court could not grant a stay of proceedings or restraining...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 2088 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jackson Kamau Nduati; Respondent: Administrators of the Estate of Nduati Kamau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 50 of 1987
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Confirmation of Grant, Vesting of Property, Outstanding Purchase Price
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Proceedings Confirmation of Grant Vesting of Property Outstanding Purchase Price

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson Kamau Nduati

Applicant

Administrators of the Estate of Nduati Kamau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the court should stay proceedings in the succession cause pending determination of Thika CMC ELC No. 31 of 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders restraining activities on Loc. 16/Kigoro/1735.
  3. 3 Whether the existence of a pending suit at Thika Law Courts has been established sufficiently to warrant a stay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence of the existence of Thika CMC ELC No. 31 of 2014, as no pleadings or documents relating to the alleged suit were attached to the supporting affidavits. Without proof of the pending suit, the court could not grant a stay of proceedings or restraining orders as requested. The court emphasized that orders cannot be issued on the basis of unsubstantiated claims. Consequently, the application was found to be without merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 3rd October 2014 is dismissed with costs.