[2023] KEELC 17021 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 17021 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant's application for stay of execution pending appeal did not meet the requirements set out in Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was not supported by evidence of substantial loss, as the only evidence presented was a recently installed container on the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 17021 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Ndatani Enterprises Company Limited; Respondent: Abshir Osman Noor; Respondent: Equity Bank Company Limited; Respondent: Land Registrar, Kajiado Land Registry
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Injunctive Relief, Preservation of Property, Appeal Thresholds
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Injunctive Relief Preservation of Property Appeal Thresholds

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndatani Enterprises Company Limited

Appellant

Abshir Osman Noor

Respondent

Equity Bank Company Limited

Respondent

Land Registrar, Kajiado Land Registry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's application meets the threshold for granting orders of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's application for stay of execution pending appeal did not meet the requirements set out in Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was not supported by evidence of substantial loss, as the only evidence presented was a recently installed container on the suit property. The lower court's orders were aimed at preserving the property and did not grant access to either party, and the dispute had not yet been determined on its merits. The court agreed with the respondent that the application and appeal were premature, as the lower court had not made any substantive findings. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.