[1999] KECA 163 (KLR)

[1999] KECA 163 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the first condition for grant of stay of execution, namely, that the intended appeal was arguable and not frivolous. The consent order did not provide any option for parties to choose which title to take, and the respondent had not refused to execute the necessary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] KECA 163 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Pauline Nduta Kagwe; Respondent: David Kagwe
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 202 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Consent Orders, Appeals Process, Transfer of Property
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Consent Orders Appeals Process Transfer of Property

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Nduta Kagwe

Applicant

David Kagwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and not frivolous.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the first condition for grant of stay of execution, namely, that the intended appeal was arguable and not frivolous. The consent order did not provide any option for parties to choose which title to take, and the respondent had not refused to execute the necessary instruments for transfer. The Court agreed with the High Court that the applicant's conduct was vindictive and that the application was without merit. Consequently, the application for stay was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay is dismissed with costs to the respondent.