[2019] KEHC 2082 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 2082 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any substantial loss they would suffer if stay was not granted, nor did they provide evidence that the respondent intended to dispose of the suit properties. The delay in filing the application was not inordinate, but the absence of proof of substantial loss...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 2082 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Charles Ondiek Awuor; Applicant: Sospeter Onyango Awuor; Respondent: Jacob Odhiambo Otieno
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 807 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Injunctions, Administration of Estates, Revocation of Grant
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Injunctions Administration of Estates Revocation of Grant

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Ondiek Awuor

Applicant

Sospeter Onyango Awuor

Applicant

Jacob Odhiambo Otieno

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated grounds for stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit properties pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have shown substantial loss or a prima facie case to warrant the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any substantial loss they would suffer if stay was not granted, nor did they provide evidence that the respondent intended to dispose of the suit properties. The delay in filing the application was not inordinate, but the absence of proof of substantial loss or a prima facie case meant the threshold for granting stay or injunction was not met. The court emphasized that the applicants bore the burden of establishing the risk of irreparable harm or the existence of an arguable appeal, which they failed to do. Consequently, the application for stay and injunction pending appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 29th July, 2019 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.