[2007] KEHC 1829 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the dismissal of his applications would cause him substantial loss, as required for a stay of execution. The applicant merely averred that his appeal would be rendered nugatory, but had not prosecuted the appeal or even filed it, despite the notice of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1829 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mwarania Kwaria; Respondent: Julius Kathia Kiujo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 259 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Probate and Administration, Revocation of Grant, Security for Stay
- 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
Mwarania Kwaria
Applicant
Julius Kathia Kiujo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to succession proceedings under the Law of Succession Act.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss or complied with requirements for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the dismissal of his applications would cause him substantial loss, as required for a stay of execution. The applicant merely averred that his appeal would be rendered nugatory, but had not prosecuted the appeal or even filed it, despite the notice of appeal being filed a year prior. Furthermore, the court held that Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not generally apply to succession proceedings, except as specifically provided under Rule 63(1) of the Probate and Administration Rules. Consequently, the application for stay was found to be incompetent and was struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
Succession Cause 259 of 1994
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF M’KWARIA MBUKIA alias KWARIA KIUJO MBUKIA (DECEASED)
MWARANIA KWARIA …………………….………………….……….. APPLICANT
VERSUS
JULIUS KATHIA KIUJO……………………….…………………… RESPONDENT
RULING
By an application dated 10th May, 2006, the applicant is seeking that the court stays execution and all proceedings in this cause pending appeal. The application is based on the grounds that the applicant, being aggrieved by this court’s order made on 4th April, 2006 dismissing his application dated 9th April, 2001, has preferred an appeal.
That if the stay sought is not granted, the respondent will proceed with execution and his (applicant’s) appeal shall be rendered nugatory.
The respondent, in opposing the application has filed a replying affidavit in which he depones that the application is frivolous and that the notice of appeal was lodged after the 14 days allowed for filing it.
Further, that the applicant has not filed an appeal. The respondent also argues that Order 41 has no application in the Law of Succession Act and the rules made there under.
Finally it was submitted that the applicant has not furnished any security. I have considered these rival arguments and must now determine the issues raised. The application is expressed to be brought under order 41 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Under this rule an order of stay of execution will be granted if the applicant demonstrates that he will suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted. He must also satisfy the court that the application has been brought without unreasonable delay and finally, the applicant must express readiness to comply with any orders as to security as the court may make.
The order complained of dismissed the applicant’s two applications which sought that a grant of representation be revoked and inhibition of a parcel of land, respectively.
The applicant has not demonstrated how that dismissal will cause him substantial loss. He has only averred that his appeal shall be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are not granted. That appeal has not been prosecuted since the notice was filed on 13th April, 2006 – one year ago. Infact the appeal itself has not been filed.
I am satisfied, on the second requirement, that this application was brought without unreasonable delay. The respondent is not required to furnish security before it is ordered. All he was expected to state is his readiness to comply with any orders as to security as may be made by the court.
The final point I want to consider is whether order 41 has any application to the Law of Succession Act (Act) or the Probate and Administration Rules, (the Rules). The Act is self-regulated in the sense that it provides for its independent procedure under the Probate and Administration Rules. That explains why the latter makes specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules that are applicable to it in Rule 63(1).
In the result I find that this application is incompetent and the same is struck out with costs to the respondent.
DATED AND DELIVEREDAT MERU THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2007.
W. OUKO
JUDGE