[2021] KEELC 1045 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 1045 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the conditional stay previously granted by the magistrate's court, specifically the requirement to deposit Kshs. 300,000 as surety for costs. The applicant also failed to disclose the existence of the earlier conditional stay and the dismissal of a similar...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 1045 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Olelimpaso Saitoti Nkolope; Respondent: Emmanuel Lekakeny Kayo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 15 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Abuse of Process, Material Non Disclosure, Conditional Stay, Functus Officio
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Abuse of Process Material Non Disclosure Conditional Stay Functus Officio

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olelimpaso Saitoti Nkolope

Appellant

Emmanuel Lekakeny Kayo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application amounts to an abuse of the court process due to non-disclosure of material facts.
  3. 3 Whether the court is functus officio regarding the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the conditional stay previously granted by the magistrate's court, specifically the requirement to deposit Kshs. 300,000 as surety for costs. The applicant also failed to disclose the existence of the earlier conditional stay and the dismissal of a similar application, amounting to material non-disclosure and abuse of court process. The court held that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for grant of stay of execution and that the application was unmerited. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 23rd March 2021 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.