[2009] KEHC 1217 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide the ruling subject to appeal, making it difficult to assess the merits of the appeal. The order appealed against was a dismissal, which is not capable of being stayed except as to costs. The applicant did not present evidence of proprietary rights over the suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1217 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mary Wanjiru Waruiwa; Respondent: Elias Mwangi Maina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 364 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Proprietary Rights, Eviction, Status Quo Preservation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mary Wanjiru Waruiwa
Appellant
Elias Mwangi Maina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with or evicting her from Plot No. 54 Mathare North light industries pending appeal.
- 2 Whether an order of dismissal is capable of being stayed under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case or proprietary rights over the suit premises to warrant the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide the ruling subject to appeal, making it difficult to assess the merits of the appeal. The order appealed against was a dismissal, which is not capable of being stayed except as to costs. The applicant did not present evidence of proprietary rights over the suit premises or material showing infringement of her rights by the respondent. Consequently, the court held that the applicant had not established a prima facie case or demonstrated grounds for the grant of an interlocutory injunction or stay of execution. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs specified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
MARY WANJIRU WARUIWA……………………….....APPELLANT
VERSUS
ELIAS MWANGI MAINA………………….....................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. Mary Wanjiru Waruiwa, hereinafter referred to as the applicant is dissatisfied with a ruling which was delivered by Miss Mokaya, Principal Magistrate on 22nd June, 2009 in CMCC No.6077 of 2008. She has lodged an appeal in this Court seeking to have the ruling and the order of the trial Magistrate set aside and the suit in the lower Court struck out with costs.
2. The applicant has now moved this Court under Order XLI Rule 4, 5 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A and Section 63e of the Civil Procedure Act seeking the following orders:
(i) There be issue an order of injunction directed at the respondent Elias Mwangi Maina, restraining him from interfering, alienating, disposing of, removing appellant or evicting the appellant or interfering with the appellant from all those premises known as Plot No. 54 Mathare North light industries pending the hearing and determination of this application and of the appeal.
(ii) There be a stay of execution of the ruling and order of Court in CMCC No.6077 of 2008, dated the 22nd day of June, 2009 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
(iii) Costs of this application be provided for.
3. The application is anchored on the following grounds:
(a) The appellant is dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court dated the 22nd day of June, 2009, and has already lodged an appeal.
(b) The appeal has high chances of success and appellant is ready and willing to provide security for its due satisfaction in the most unlikely event that the appeal should fail.
(c) The continued sustenance of the order of Court dated the 22nd day of October, 2008, is tantamount to giving orders against the appellant who was not sued, served or heard in the said application, but on whom the order so illegally obtained is sought to be enforced with the consequence that she faces eviction by way of interlocutory orders without first being heard.
(d) In the event that the appellant is evicted from the suit premises without being heard, she will suffer substantial loss and damage by being removed from her place of abode since 1968. The resident does not stand to suffer any such or similar loss or damage.
(e) To meet the ends of justice, it would be made to grant the prayers sought. And on the annexed affidavit of Mary Wanjiru Waruiwa, the appellant herein and other arguments to be adduced at the hearing hereof.
4. In her affidavit, the applicant avers that she has a good appeal and that unless the orders sought are granted, she may be evicted. She therefore prays for an order to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of her appeal. It is evident that the applicant seeks an order of interlocutory injunction under Order XLI Rule 4(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules pending the hearing of her appeal. In order for the applicant to succeed, she has to convince this Court that she has an arguable appeal which prima facie has chances of success.
5. The ruling of the Court subject of the applicant’s appeal has not been availed to this Court. It is therefore difficult for this Court to appreciate the applicant’s appeal. Moreover, from a copy of the order which was annexed to the application as annexture MWW3, it is evident that the order sought to be appealed against is an order dismissing an application dated 21st April, 2009. A copy of that application has not been annexed to the current application.
6. Be that as it may, an order of dismissal is not an order capable of being stayed, as it is not an order capable of being executed other than execution for costs. The applicant has not presented to this Court any material upon which the Court can conclude that there is prima facie evidence that the respondent is infringing upon the applicant’s rights. Further the applicant has not established any proprietary rights over premises No.54 Mathare North, Light Industries.
7. For the above reasons, I find no merit in this application and do therefore dismiss it.
Those shall be the orders of this Court.
Dated and delivered this 30th day of October, 2009
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
No appearance for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent
Eric, court clerk