[2020] KESC 47 (KLR)

[2020] KESC 47 (KLR)

The Supreme Court held that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for filing an application, specifically the payment of the requisite filing fees. The Court emphasized that under Rule 7E (9) of its rules, pleadings are only deemed filed when both the documents are lodged and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KESC 47 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Dominic B. Onyango Konditi; Respondent: Abson Motors Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Court Station
Supreme Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 25 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application struck out for want of procedural compliance; no order as to costs
Judges
PM Mwilu, DK Maraga, MK Ibrahim, SC Wanjala, I Lenaola
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Procedural Compliance, Filing Fees, Withdrawal of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Procedural Compliance Filing Fees Withdrawal of Application

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic B. Onyango Konditi

Applicant

Abson Motors Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with the procedural requirements for filing an application before the Supreme Court.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of execution could be admitted or served in the absence of payment of requisite filing fees.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be struck out for want of procedural compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for filing an application, specifically the payment of the requisite filing fees. The Court emphasized that under Rule 7E (9) of its rules, pleadings are only deemed filed when both the documents are lodged and the fees paid. Since the applicant neither completed the filing process nor was exempted from the requirement, and further expressed an intention to withdraw the application, the Court found that the application could not be served on the respondent and was a nullity from the outset. Consequently, the application was struck out for want of compliance with procedural steps ab initio.

Court Disposition

application struck out for want of procedural compliance; no order as to costs

Orders

  • The application is struck out in its entirety for being a nullity ab initio.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.