[2013] KEHC 1254 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 1254 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay pending appeal was filed without unreasonable delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted. The respondent, on the other hand, had been deprived of the enjoyment of the suit property since 1986, and the continued occupation by the applicant was causing her irreparable loss. The court also noted that the applicant had not shown seriousness in prosecuting the appeal, as no appeal had been filed more than a year after the notice of appeal. The court concluded that the application was being used to further frustrate the respondent and that the applicant's claim, if any, lay...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 1254 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Milka Mugure Gitau; Defendant: George Gitau; Interested Party: Njoroge Mugo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 October 2013
Case Number
Civil Suit 50 of 1980
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the applicant
Judges
RPV Wendoh
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Matrimonial Property Disputes, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Consent Orders, Title Cancellation
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Matrimonial Property Disputes Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance Consent Orders Title Cancellation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milka Mugure Gitau

Plaintiff

George Gitau

Defendant

Njoroge Mugo

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay pending appeal was filed without unreasonable delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted. The respondent, on the other hand, had been deprived of the enjoyment of the suit property since 1986, and the continued occupation by the applicant was causing her irreparable loss. The court also noted that the applicant had not shown seriousness in prosecuting the appeal, as no appeal had been filed more than a year after the notice of appeal. The court concluded that the application was being used to further frustrate the respondent and that the applicant's claim, if any, lay...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the applicant

Orders

  • The application for stay pending appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.