[2013] KEHC 4506 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was fatally incompetent because the appellants failed to annex a certified copy of the impugned order as required by law. Furthermore, the lower court's order was not capable of execution, as it merely refused a previous application for stay and did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4506 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Nellie Njuguna & Tony Ngugi (Suing as the Chairperson & Secretary respectively, of Kaputei Garden Association); Respondent: Nadeem Butt; Respondent: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 236 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application struck out and dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DA Onyancha
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Competency of Application
- 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
Nellie Njuguna & Tony Ngugi (Suing as the Chairperson & Secretary respectively, of Kaputei Garden Association)
Appellant
Nadeem Butt
Respondent
City Council of Nairobi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution is competent without annexing a certified copy of the impugned order.
- 2 Whether a stay of execution can be granted where the lower court made no substantive order capable of execution.
- 3 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was fatally incompetent because the appellants failed to annex a certified copy of the impugned order as required by law. Furthermore, the lower court's order was not capable of execution, as it merely refused a previous application for stay and did not grant any substantive relief to the respondents that could be enforced against the appellants. Granting a stay in such circumstances would be futile and amount to the court acting in vain. The court also noted that the application was an abuse of process and that the appeal itself had limited chances of success. Consequently, the application was struck out and dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application struck out and dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is struck out and dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Civil Appeal 236 of 2012
NELLIE NJUGUNA & TONY NGUGI
(Suing as the Chairperson & Secretary respectively,
of KAPUTEI GARDEN ASSOCIATION) . ...................APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. NADEEM BUTT. ........................................................................ 1ST RESPONDENT
2. CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI. .................................................. 2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application before the court is a Notice of Motion dated 16th May, 2012 and filed by the Appellant who was the Plaintiff in the court below. He sought a stay of execution of the lower court’s orders found in a ruling dated 26th April, 2012, pending the hearing and final determination of this appeal. The certified copy of the ruling or order was not annexed to this application as mandatorily required by the relevant law. It is, therefore, not possible to know and properly appreciate the true nature and contents of the impugned order. It is trite law that where a certified copy of such order is not annexed to the application before the court, the application is rendered fatally incompetent and liable for striking out or dismissal.
Secondly, the stay of execution sought by the Appellants is an order refusing and dismissing a lower court application which itself sought a stay. The lower court, as I understand it, did not make any substantive order capable of being executed by the Respondents. Put differently, the Respondents were not given any order which stands in their favour against the Appellants and which the Appellants may fail to comply with in the mean time rendering it liable for execution by the Respondents. In the above circumstances, this court would be acting in futility if it were to grant a stay. The court is not supposed to act in vain. Accordingly also, this application would clearly appear to have been brought in abuse of the process of court. It has wasted a lot of courts valuable but limited time.
Finally, I have carefully perused the whole appeal record, including lower court pleadings, submissions, affidavits and other related documents. The honourable trial magistrate in my view, took account and considered all the material before him before he refused to grant the stay sought before that court. This court has also considered the same and has come to conclusion, with great respect, that the chances of success of this appeal are, on the face of things, very limited. For that reason, I find no merit in protecting the appeal since at the end of the day, the Applicant/Appellant, will not likely suffer, much damage or loss, if the order of stay sought is not granted.
The application is therefore, struck out and dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 19th day of March, 2013.
..................................................
D A ONYANCHA
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]