[2023] KECA 182 (KLR)

[2023] KECA 182 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any circumstances that would render her motion for stay of proceedings urgent. The impugned ruling was made in a case filed in 2001, and the 1st Interested Party or its counsel had over 21 years to take any necessary steps. There was no evidence of imminent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECA 182 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lucy Wanjiru Kiruhi (Sued as an Administrator of the Estate of Hannah Mukami Kiruhi); Respondent: Lilian Wairimu Ngatho; Respondent: Elizabeth Murungari Njoroge; Interested Party: Moki Savings Co-Operative Society Ltd; Interested Party: Beatrice Njeri Gachukia; Interested Party: Joyce Waringa Njuguna; Interested Party: Susan Mugura Njuguna; Interested Party: James Njoroge Mwangi; Interested Party: Samuel Karimi Karigi; Interested Party: Venensio Mbataru Kariuki; Interested Party: Michael Mbira Ngingi; Interested Party: Francis Kariuki Macharia; Interested Party: George Murigu Githuku; Interested Party: Sammy Thumbi Nyambare; Interested Party: Simon Gathii Macharia; Interested Party: James Nduati Kuria; Interested Party: James Maragwa Weru; Interested Party: Justine Willy Kariuki; Interested Party: James Mathu Wakaba; Interested Party: David Mwangi G Guceca; Interested Party: James Njoroge Njau; Interested Party: Cecilia Nduruka; Interested Party: Richard Gichini Njoroge; Interested Party: Beth Wairimi Kahiu
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal (Application) E847 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Application / Application for Certification of Urgency and Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
application for certification of urgency dismissed
Judges
KI Laibuta
Legal Topics
Certification of Urgency, Stay of Proceedings, Locus Standi, Joinder of Parties, Estate Administration
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Certification of Urgency Stay of Proceedings Locus Standi Joinder of Parties Estate Administration

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

Lucy Wanjiru Kiruhi (Sued as an Administrator of the Estate of Hannah Mukami Kiruhi)

Applicant

Lilian Wairimu Ngatho

Respondent

Elizabeth Murungari Njoroge

Respondent

Moki Savings Co-Operative Society Ltd

Interested Party

Beatrice Njeri Gachukia

Interested Party

Joyce Waringa Njuguna

Interested Party

Susan Mugura Njuguna

Interested Party

James Njoroge Mwangi

Interested Party

Samuel Karimi Karigi

Interested Party

Venensio Mbataru Kariuki

Interested Party

Michael Mbira Ngingi

Interested Party

Francis Kariuki Macharia

Interested Party

George Murigu Githuku

Interested Party

Sammy Thumbi Nyambare

Interested Party

Simon Gathii Macharia

Interested Party

James Nduati Kuria

Interested Party

James Maragwa Weru

Interested Party

Justine Willy Kariuki

Interested Party

James Mathu Wakaba

Interested Party

David Mwangi G Guceca

Interested Party

James Njoroge Njau

Interested Party

Cecilia Nduruka

Interested Party

Richard Gichini Njoroge

Interested Party

Beth Wairimi Kahiu

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Application / Application for Certification of Urgency and Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's motion for stay of proceedings in the Environment and Land Court should be certified as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek exclusion of the 1st Interested Party from the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the inactivity of the 1st Interested Party (Society) for 30 years justifies urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any circumstances that would render her motion for stay of proceedings urgent. The impugned ruling was made in a case filed in 2001, and the 1st Interested Party or its counsel had over 21 years to take any necessary steps. There was no evidence of imminent harm or prejudice that would result if the proceedings in the Environment and Land Court continued. The court therefore upheld its earlier decision and declined to certify the applicant's motion as urgent.

Court Disposition

application for certification of urgency dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's motion is not certified as urgent.
  • The earlier decision declining urgency is upheld.