[2013] KEHC 5496 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 5496 (KLR)

The court found that it had dismissed the applicant's earlier Notice of Motion on 5/7/2013 and did not issue any substantive order capable of being stayed. Without a notice of appeal or an order to stay, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The applicant's repeated filings, instead of pursuing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 5496 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Njuguna t/a Njuakim Commercial Agencies; Defendant: Equity Bank Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 6 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LN Gacheru
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Injunctive Relief, Jurisdiction of Court, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Stay of Execution Injunctive Relief Jurisdiction of Court Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Njuguna t/a Njuakim Commercial Agencies

Plaintiff

Equity Bank Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution where no substantive order was issued in the previous ruling.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal to justify the grant of stay.
  3. 3 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it had dismissed the applicant's earlier Notice of Motion on 5/7/2013 and did not issue any substantive order capable of being stayed. Without a notice of appeal or an order to stay, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The applicant's repeated filings, instead of pursuing an appeal, constituted an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application for stay was dismissed as there was nothing to stay and the proper forum for any further relief was the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 26/7/2013 is hereby dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.