[2021] KECA 557 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 557 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that its jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules is dependent on the existence of a properly filed Notice of Appeal in compliance with Rule 75. In this case, the applicants had not filed a Notice of Appeal at the appropriate registry, nor was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 557 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Leah Wairimu Waweru; Applicant: Martha Nyambura Kangthe; Applicant: Milka Wangari Kamau; Applicant: Joshua Njuguna Kamau; Applicant: David Ngugi Kamau; Applicant: Albert Gicheru Kamau; Applicant: Simon Gicheru Kamau; Applicant: Ruth Mumbi Kamau; Respondent: Waithera Mohoyo; Respondent: Ruffas Mwangi Kamau
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 27 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Outcome
Application struck out as incompetent.
Judges
J Karanja, GK Oenga, A Mohammed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Succession Proceedings, Notice of Appeal Requirement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Stay of Execution Succession Proceedings Notice of Appeal Requirement

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leah Wairimu Waweru

Applicant

Martha Nyambura Kangthe

Applicant

Milka Wangari Kamau

Applicant

Joshua Njuguna Kamau

Applicant

David Ngugi Kamau

Applicant

Albert Gicheru Kamau

Applicant

Simon Gicheru Kamau

Applicant

Ruth Mumbi Kamau

Applicant

Waithera Mohoyo

Respondent

Ruffas Mwangi Kamau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution where no Notice of Appeal has been properly filed.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of execution is competent in the absence of a Notice of Appeal under Rule 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that its jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules is dependent on the existence of a properly filed Notice of Appeal in compliance with Rule 75. In this case, the applicants had not filed a Notice of Appeal at the appropriate registry, nor was there any evidence of such filing. The mere attachment of an unstamped and unsigned Notice of Appeal to the supporting affidavit did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 75. Consequently, there was no competent appeal before the Court upon which the application for stay could be anchored. The application was therefore incompetent and was struck out.

Court Disposition

Application struck out as incompetent.

Orders

  • The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction due to absence of a properly filed Notice of Appeal.
  • No order as to costs.