[2017] KEELC 3407 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3407 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st Defendant had not demonstrated the existence of a pending suit between the parties that would justify a stay of execution. The Plaintiff was not a party to Kisumu H.C.C. Suit No.104 of 2016, and the notice of appeal previously filed by the 1st Defendant had already been struck out. In...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3407 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Josana Academy; Defendant: David Owino Ondeng; Defendant: Kosetiony Kipruto Tinderet; Defendant: Kiprotich Korir; Defendant: Commissioner of Land; Defendant: The District Land Registrar, Kisumu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 436 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Determination of Another Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Pending Suit Requirement, Costs Award, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Pending Suit Requirement Costs Award Land Disputes

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josana Academy

Plaintiff

David Owino Ondeng

Defendant

Kosetiony Kipruto Tinderet

Defendant

Kiprotich Korir

Defendant

Commissioner of Land

Defendant

The District Land Registrar, Kisumu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Determination of Another Suit

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant has made a case for stay of execution against the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether there is a pending case between the parties justifying stay of execution.
  3. 3 What orders should be issued by the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st Defendant had not demonstrated the existence of a pending suit between the parties that would justify a stay of execution. The Plaintiff was not a party to Kisumu H.C.C. Suit No.104 of 2016, and the notice of appeal previously filed by the 1st Defendant had already been struck out. In the absence of any pending proceedings between the parties, there was no legal basis for granting a stay of execution of the decree. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The 1st Defendant's notice of motion dated 26th September 2016 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.