[2009] KEHC 3276 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was not entitled to the order of stay of execution sought under Order XXI Rule 22 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, as his previous application for stay had already been dismissed and he had not invoked the court's review jurisdiction. Furthermore, the decision in Nairobi...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3276 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Mchenzala Sita; Respondent: Idha Marie
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 161 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Abuse of Process, Review Jurisdiction
- 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
Mchenzala Sita
Appellant
Idha Marie
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the decree under Order XXI Rule 22 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 2 Whether the decision in Nairobi Misc. Civil Suit No. 1345 of 2005 is applicable to the present parties and proceedings.
- 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was not entitled to the order of stay of execution sought under Order XXI Rule 22 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, as his previous application for stay had already been dismissed and he had not invoked the court's review jurisdiction. Furthermore, the decision in Nairobi Misc. Civil Suit No. 1345 of 2005 did not bind the parties in the present suit, as they were not parties to that proceeding and no order was issued staying these proceedings. The court held that the application was an abuse of the process of the court and dismissed it with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
Civil Appeal 161 of 2007
MCHENZALA SITA…………………………….…APPELLANT
VERSUS
IDHA MARIE………………………......………...RESPONDENT
RULING
This Notice of Motion has been brought under Order XXI Rule 22, Order L Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rule and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act for stay of execution of a decree given on 1st July 2007 and issued on 19th March 2009 in view of the ruling in HCCC No. 1345 of 2005 Nairobi. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Respondent Idha Marie and is based on the main ground that the High Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 1345 of 2005 (OS) declared inter alia that no execution should be levied against the Insured of United Insurance Company now in liquidation.
On 20th May 2009, I dismissed the appellant’s application for stay of execution which application had been lodged under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The basis of the present application is a decision made in proceedings which were commenced in Nairobi Misc. Civil Suit No. 1345 of 2005. The parties herein were not parties in that suit. No order was issued staying proceedings herein and even if such an order would have been issued, I would have doubts as to its efficacy. Besides, that decision was delivered on 18th December 2007 and was not brought to the attention of the court, when the respondent’s previous application for stay of execution was canvassed. The applicant has not invoked this court’s review jurisdiction. Having dismissed his first application for stay of execution it was not open to the applicant to move the court in the manner he has done. The order he seeks is not available to him under Order XXI Rule 22 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act which have been invoked.
This application is an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly it is dismissed with costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2009.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of Mr. Kenzi for the Applicant and Mr. Gathuku for the Respondent.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
30TH JULY 2009