[2019] KEELC 3667 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3667 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to file a Notice of Appeal within the stipulated time, did not attend the hearing despite the date being fixed at his instance, and failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the grant of a stay of execution. The application was also brought under the wrong provisions of law...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3667 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mutiria Karumbai Macwa; Defendant: James Njagi Makembo; Defendant: The County Commissioner Tharaka South Sub County; Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 188 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Eviction Orders, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeals Process Eviction Orders Security for Due Performance

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mutiria Karumbai Macwa

Plaintiff

James Njagi Makembo

Defendant

The County Commissioner Tharaka South Sub County

Defendant

The Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

The Hon. Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application was brought under the correct legal provisions and within the stipulated time.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has offered sufficient security for due performance of the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to file a Notice of Appeal within the stipulated time, did not attend the hearing despite the date being fixed at his instance, and failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the grant of a stay of execution. The application was also brought under the wrong provisions of law and after undue delay. The court held that the orders sought were not capable of being stayed and that the applicant had not offered security for due performance. Consequently, the application for stay of execution pending appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the 1st defendant.