[2002] KECA 56 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delays in taking essential steps before the superior court. The applicants' own counsel admitted to these delays. As a result, the court was not persuaded that the application warranted urgent or priority hearing. The judge...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KECA 56 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: MDC Holdings Ltd; Applicant: Margaret Wairimu Magugu; Applicant: Arthur K. Magugu; Respondent: J.P. Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 7 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for certification of urgency and priority hearing declined.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Priority Hearing, Urgency Certification
- 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
MDC Holdings Ltd
Applicant
Margaret Wairimu Magugu
Applicant
Arthur K. Magugu
Applicant
J.P. Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution should be certified as urgent and given priority hearing.
- 2 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient explanation for delays in taking essential steps before the superior court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delays in taking essential steps before the superior court. The applicants' own counsel admitted to these delays. As a result, the court was not persuaded that the application warranted urgent or priority hearing. The judge declined to certify the motion as urgent and awarded costs to the respondent, emphasizing that unexplained procedural delays undermine claims of urgency and do not justify deviation from standard hearing timelines.
Court Disposition
Application for certification of urgency and priority hearing declined.
Orders
- The motion is not certified as urgent.
- Costs of KES 5,000 awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: BOSIRE J.A (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI.7 OF 2002 (UR.5/2002)
BETWEEN
MDC HOLDINGS LTD ........................................................... IST APPLICANT
MARGARET WAIRIMU MAGUGU ...................................... 2ND APPLICANT
ARTHUR K. MAGUGU ......................................................... 3RD APPLICANT
AND
J.P. MACHIRA T/A MACHIRA & CO. ADVOCATES ............. RESPONDENT
Being an application for stay of execution pending the filing and determination of an intended appeal against the decision given by the superior court (Mr. Justice A. Ringera) on 15th January 2002
in
Milimani Commercial Courts
H.C.C.C. NO. 1549 of 2001) *******************
R U L I N G
I am not persuaded that this matter should be heard on a priority basis. There are various delays by the applicants in taking essential steps before the superior court which are unexplained. Counsel for the applicants admits as much. That being my view of the matter I find no basis for ruling that the motion herein should be given a priority hearing. I still decline to certify the motion as urgent. Today's costs assessed at Kshs.5000/= to the respondent, in any event.
Dated at Nairobi and delivered this 29th day of January, 2002.
S.E.O. BOSIRE .................................. JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR