[2019] KEELC 1999 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 1999 (KLR)

The Environment and Land Court held that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment and with the Court of Appeal having already determined the appeal. The court found that Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules did not apply because there was no appeal pending before the Court of Appeal, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 1999 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kiplagat Kotut; Defendant: Rose Jebor Kipngok
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 691 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal to the Supreme Court
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Functus Officio, Appeals Process, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Functus Officio Appeals Process Abuse of Court Process

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiplagat Kotut

Plaintiff

Rose Jebor Kipngok

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal to the Supreme Court

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution pending appeal to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeal has rendered its judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of execution is an abuse of court process given the pending application before the Court of Appeal.
  3. 3 Whether Article 159 of the Constitution or Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment and Land Court held that it was functus officio after delivering its judgment and with the Court of Appeal having already determined the appeal. The court found that Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules did not apply because there was no appeal pending before the Court of Appeal, and the matter was now before the Supreme Court. The court further held that Article 159 of the Constitution could not be invoked to create jurisdiction where none existed. Since a similar application for stay of execution was already pending before the Court of Appeal, the present application was deemed an abuse of court process. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for stay...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.