[2017] KEELC 2010 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 2010 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was fatally and incurably defective because the applicant had not filed a notice of appeal or an appeal against the judgement and decree of Narok CMCC No. 30 of 2012. Without an appeal, there was no basis for the court to grant a stay of execution. On the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 2010 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Morombi Saoli; Defendant: Soitara Ole Saoli
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 264 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Transfer
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Transfer of Suit, Abuse of Court Process, Supervisory Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Transfer of Suit Abuse of Court Process Supervisory Jurisdiction

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Morombi Saoli

Plaintiff

Soitara Ole Saoli

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Transfer

  1. 1 Whether there are grounds for the court to order stay of execution of the judgement and decree of Narok CMCC No. 30 of 2012.
  2. 2 Whether there are grounds to order for the transfer of the suit from Narok CMCC No. 30 of 2012 to this court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was fatally and incurably defective because the applicant had not filed a notice of appeal or an appeal against the judgement and decree of Narok CMCC No. 30 of 2012. Without an appeal, there was no basis for the court to grant a stay of execution. On the issue of transfer, the court held that there was nothing left in the suit in Narok CMCC No. 30 of 2012 to transfer, as the trial court had already made a finding, entered judgement, and execution proceedings had commenced. The application was therefore an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 5th May, 2016 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.