[2001] KEHC 767 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 767 (KLR)

The court held that a stay of execution cannot be granted where the ruling in question does not require or contemplate any execution. The ruling of 23rd March, 2001, simply refused the Applicant's request for provision from the estate and did not order any party to do anything or direct any distribution or action regarding the estate. As such, there is nothing to execute, and the concept of staying execution does not arise. The application for stay is therefore improper, hollow, and incapable of being granted. The court further found that the application was filed within the prescribed time, but this did not affect the substantive outcome. The Applicant's fears regarding the estate being...

Citation
[2001] KEHC 767 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Louise Njeri Mwaura; Respondent: Antony Levitan; Respondent: Peter J.S. Hewett
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 October 2001
Case Number
Probate & Administration 159 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Probate and Administration, Dependants Entitlement, Appeals Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Stay of Execution Probate and Administration Dependants Entitlement Appeals Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Njeri Mwaura

Applicant

Antony Levitan

Respondent

Peter J.S. Hewett

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution can be granted where the ruling does not require execution.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay was filed within the prescribed time limit.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant and her son are entitled to any part of the estate as dependants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a stay of execution cannot be granted where the ruling in question does not require or contemplate any execution. The ruling of 23rd March, 2001, simply refused the Applicant's request for provision from the estate and did not order any party to do anything or direct any distribution or action regarding the estate. As such, there is nothing to execute, and the concept of staying execution does not arise. The application for stay is therefore improper, hollow, and incapable of being granted. The court further found that the application was filed within the prescribed time, but this did not affect the substantive outcome. The Applicant's fears regarding the estate being...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The summons dated 4th June, 2001 for stay of execution is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Respondent.