[2012] KECA 236 (KLR)

[2012] KECA 236 (KLR)

The Court found that the High Court's order of 17th June, 2011 merely dismissed the applicants' application for review and did not itself create any executable order. The substantive orders capable of execution were made on 21st October, 2010, and no appeal had been filed against those orders. The Court further held...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KECA 236 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mary Wambui Kaigua; Applicant: Stanley Muigai Kaigua; Respondent: James Kuria Maina; Respondent: Samuel Mbogo Kaigua; Respondent: Godfrey Waithaka Maina
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 196 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Review of Orders, Family Land Disputes, Vacant Possession, Trusteeship, Execution of Decree
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Review of Orders Family Land Disputes Vacant Possession Trusteeship Execution of Decree

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Wambui Kaigua

Applicant

Stanley Muigai Kaigua

Applicant

James Kuria Maina

Respondent

Samuel Mbogo Kaigua

Respondent

Godfrey Waithaka Maina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether there is any order capable of being stayed following the High Court's dismissal of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated an arguable appeal warranting a stay of execution.
  3. 3 Whether refusal to grant a stay would render the intended appeal nugatory.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the High Court's order of 17th June, 2011 merely dismissed the applicants' application for review and did not itself create any executable order. The substantive orders capable of execution were made on 21st October, 2010, and no appeal had been filed against those orders. The Court further held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable point in their intended appeal, as the family land had already been subdivided and registered in the names of the respective family members in accordance with the 1991 decree. The applicants' claim that they would be rendered landless was unfounded. The Court concluded that there was no basis for granting a stay of...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion by the applicants is dismissed.
  • The costs of the dismissed motion shall be in the intended appeal.