[2009] KECA 248 (KLR)

[2009] KECA 248 (KLR)

The Court found that there were no pending proceedings in the succession cause that could be stayed, as the succession cause had been determined and the subject land had been subdivided and transferred to third parties. The applicant had not joined the current registered proprietors of the subdivided parcels, making...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KECA 248 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jane Mukompuria Mworia; Respondent: Margaret Mukomunene; Respondent: Misheck Ngurwe
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 172 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Outcome
application struck out with costs to the respondent
Judges
AM Githinji, ARM Visram
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Succession Proceedings, Revocation of Grant, Res Judicata, Status Quo Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Stay of Execution Succession Proceedings Revocation of Grant Res Judicata Status Quo Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Mukompuria Mworia

Applicant

Margaret Mukomunene

Respondent

Misheck Ngurwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal

  1. 1 Whether there are pending proceedings in the succession cause that can be stayed.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for maintenance of status quo and inhibition on the land titles.
  3. 3 Whether the application is competent in light of the transfer and sub-division of the subject land and non-joinder of current proprietors.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that there were no pending proceedings in the succession cause that could be stayed, as the succession cause had been determined and the subject land had been subdivided and transferred to third parties. The applicant had not joined the current registered proprietors of the subdivided parcels, making it procedurally improper for the court to grant orders affecting those titles. The application was therefore incompetent, and it was unnecessary to consider whether the intended appeal was arguable or whether it would be rendered nugatory if the orders sought were not granted. The application was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application is struck out with costs to the respondent.