[2022] KEELC 15708 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 15708 (KLR)

The court found that the application for extension of stay of execution was brought without unreasonable delay and that the appellant had provided satisfactory explanations for the delay in complying with the initial conditions. The court exercised its discretion to reinstate and extend the stay of execution orders...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 15708 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Nancy Muthoni Macere (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Peter Macere Kamundo (Deceased)); Respondent: Kirinyaga County Government; Respondent: Regina Muthoni Mwangi; Respondent: Michael Muthii Mwangi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 9 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Stay of Execution and Admission of Appeal
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
EC Cherono
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Admission of Appeal, Security for Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Extension of Time Admission of Appeal Security for Costs

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nancy Muthoni Macere (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate of Peter Macere Kamundo (Deceased))

Appellant

Kirinyaga County Government

Respondent

Regina Muthoni Mwangi

Respondent

Michael Muthii Mwangi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Stay of Execution and Admission of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend the stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time and stay was brought without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant complied with the conditions previously set by the court for stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for extension of stay of execution was brought without unreasonable delay and that the appellant had provided satisfactory explanations for the delay in complying with the initial conditions. The court exercised its discretion to reinstate and extend the stay of execution orders to preserve the subject matter of the appeal, holding that it was in the interest of justice to do so. The court also noted that the appeal had already been admitted for hearing, rendering part of the application overtaken by events. The appellant was directed to compile the record of appeal within 30 days, and costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • The stay of execution orders issued by this court on June 5, 2020 are reinstated and extended until the appeal is heard and determined.
  • The appeal having been admitted to hearing on 15/4/2021, prayer No. 4 of the application is overtaken by events.