[2011] KEHC 1838 (KLR)
The application for stay of proceedings is incompetent as it fails to link the alleged appeal to the relief sought and does not satisfy the mandatory requirements for grant of stay under the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the applicants have not demonstrated how they would suffer substantial loss if the order...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1838 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mohammed Ali Omar; Applicant: Munir Ali Omar; Applicant: Tuhfa Ali Omar; Respondent: Farid Ali Omar; Respondent: Said A. Azubedi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 255 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Appeals, Interim Relief, Kadhis Court Procedure
- 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
Mohammed Ali Omar
Applicant
Munir Ali Omar
Applicant
Tuhfa Ali Omar
Applicant
Farid Ali Omar
Respondent
Said A. Azubedi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of proceedings in Kadhi's Court Petition No.56 of 2005.
- 2 Whether the application satisfies the requirements for grant of stay under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for stay of proceedings is incompetent as it fails to link the alleged appeal to the relief sought and does not satisfy the mandatory requirements for grant of stay under the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the applicants have not demonstrated how they would suffer substantial loss if the order is not granted, nor have they offered any security as required. The application, though brought without unreasonable delay, is fatally defective for non-compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements, warranting its dismissal with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for stay of proceedings is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2010
MOHAMMED ALI OMAR…………...........................……………1ST APPELLANT
MUNIR ALI OMAR…………………............................…………...2ND APPLICANT
TUHFA ALI OMAR…….…………...........................……………...3RD APPLICANT
VERSUS
FARID ALI OMAR…………….………..............................………1ST RESPONDENT
SAID A. AZUBEDI......................................2ND RESPONDENT/INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
The application before me besides being poorly drafted is incompetent for the following reasons:
It has been brought by three applicants, Mohammed Ali Omar, Munir Ali Omar and Tuhfa Ali Omar who claim that they are aggrieved by the decision of the Kadhi’s Court in Nakuru Petition No.56 of 2005 and consequently seek:
“…stay of proceedings in petition No.56 of 2005 in the Kadhi’s court at Nakuru.”
It does not state what the applicants intend to do once a stay is granted. An interim relief is sought and granted pending an event or action. It is, however, apparent from the affidavit in support of the application that the applicants allege that they have filed Appeal No.42 of 2010 without linking that appeal to this application, by, for instance stating that pending the hearing and determination of the appeal there be a stay of proceedings. With regard to Appeal No. 42 of 2010, a copy of the Memorandum is annexed from which it is clear that the appellant is Farid Ali Omar, the 1st respondent and not the applicants.
Section 8(2) of the Kadhis’ Court Act provides that until the Chief Justice makes rules of procedure and practice for proceedings in the Kadhis’ courts, the Civil Procedure Rules shall apply in the same way they are applied in the subordinate courts under the Civil Procedure Act. It follows that this application ought to have been brought under Order 41 rule 4 of the revoked Civil Procedure Rules now Order 42 rule 6 of the 2010 Rules. The court under these provisions must be satisfied that unless the order of stay is granted, the applicant will suffer substantial loss, that the application for stay has been brought within unreasonable delay and that the applicant will provide security as may be ordered by court.
Two of these conditions have not been satisfied. The applicants have annexed a copy of an order in Nakuru Kadhi’s Court Petition No.65 of 2005 issued on 14th April, 2010 in which the applicants were ordered to deposit with the court the title documents in respect of NAKURU MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 5/126.
The applicants have not demonstrated how they will suffer substantial loss by complying with that order. Although this application was brought timeously, the applicants have not offered any security.
For these reasons, the application fails and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Nakuru this 12th day of April, 2011.
W. OUKO
JUDGE