[2022] KEHC 15810 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 15810 (KLR)

The court held that since the petition had already been dismissed in its entirety by a previous judgment, there was nothing left to stay. The only avenue available to the applicants was to appeal the decision if they were dissatisfied. The court found no merit in the application for stay of execution, as the proper...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 15810 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Martins Wamalwa Nyongesa; Applicant: Samuel Njau Kangau; Applicant: Catherine Nabwile Simiyu; Respondent: Inspector General of Police; Respondent: Director of Public Prosescutions; Respondent: The Attorney General; Interested Party: Francis Munialo Opar; Interested Party: Steve Njoru; Interested Party: Noordin Issack Adan
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition 14 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Right to Be Heard Stay of Execution Appeals Process

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martins Wamalwa Nyongesa

Applicant

Samuel Njau Kangau

Applicant

Catherine Nabwile Simiyu

Applicant

Inspector General of Police

Respondent

Director of Public Prosescutions

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Francis Munialo Opar

Interested Party

Steve Njoru

Interested Party

Noordin Issack Adan

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment dismissing their petition.
  2. 2 Whether failure to be heard justifies the grant of a stay of execution.
  3. 3 Whether the proper remedy after dismissal of a petition is an appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the petition had already been dismissed in its entirety by a previous judgment, there was nothing left to stay. The only avenue available to the applicants was to appeal the decision if they were dissatisfied. The court found no merit in the application for stay of execution, as the proper procedure was to file an appeal rather than seek a stay after the petition had been conclusively determined. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 18.10.2022 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent only.