[2020] KEHC 2809 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 2809 (KLR)

The court found that the application dated 8.7.2019 was similar to a previous application and thus res judicata. However, the court held that the applicant did not need to seek leave to appeal as the order was appealable as of right under Order 43 rule 1(k) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court determined that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 2809 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kanampius Mureithi t/a Kanaz Technologies Solutions Eldoret; Respondent: Ben Langat t/a Into Computers (Eld) Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 May 2020
Case Number
Civil Appeal 147 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution allowed; costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Res Judicata, Taxation of Costs, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Res Judicata Taxation of Costs Jurisdiction of High Court

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanampius Mureithi t/a Kanaz Technologies Solutions Eldoret

Appellant

Ben Langat t/a Into Computers (Eld) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application dated 8.7.2019 was res judicata.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to stay and/or set aside taxation of costs.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay of execution is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application dated 8.7.2019 was similar to a previous application and thus res judicata. However, the court held that the applicant did not need to seek leave to appeal as the order was appealable as of right under Order 43 rule 1(k) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court determined that the application for stay of execution was made without delay, the appeal was arguable, and the applicant had met the threshold for grant of stay. The court also noted that determining the jurisdictional issue regarding taxation would amount to prematurely disposing of the appeal. Consequently, the court allowed the application for stay of execution pending the hearing and...

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution allowed; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • Temporary stay of execution in Eldoret CMCC No. 427 of 2011 pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.