[2022] KEELC 1914 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 1914 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of proceedings lacked merit because the order appealed from was interlocutory and not a final determination of the suit. The court agreed with the respondents that even if the applicant's intended appeal succeeded, the proceedings in the main suit would not be rendered...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 1914 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Joseph Mwangi Gatimu; Respondent: Wachira Gatimu; Respondent: Michael Wanjohi Gatimu; Respondent: Grace Kaguu Karani; Respondent: Lilian Wangithi Gatimu; Respondent: Benson Kinyua Gatimu; Respondent: Dalmas Macharia Gatimu; Applicant: Joseph Karimi Maganjo; Applicant: Michael Karubiu Maganjo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 22 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Applications, Abuse of Process, Succession Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Proceedings Interlocutory Applications Abuse of Process Succession 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Mwangi Gatimu

Respondent

Wachira Gatimu

Respondent

Michael Wanjohi Gatimu

Respondent

Grace Kaguu Karani

Respondent

Lilian Wangithi Gatimu

Respondent

Benson Kinyua Gatimu

Respondent

Dalmas Macharia Gatimu

Respondent

Joseph Karimi Maganjo

Applicant

Michael Karubiu Maganjo

Applicant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending the outcome of an application for leave to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if proceedings are not stayed.
  3. 3 Whether granting a stay would amount to an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of proceedings lacked merit because the order appealed from was interlocutory and not a final determination of the suit. The court agreed with the respondents that even if the applicant's intended appeal succeeded, the proceedings in the main suit would not be rendered nugatory. Furthermore, the court noted that related succession proceedings had already been stayed pending the hearing and determination of the present suit, and granting a further stay would be contrary to the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act and would amount to an abuse of the court process. The court therefore dismissed the application for stay with costs to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 15th December, 2020 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondents.