[2022] KEELC 15430 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 15430 (KLR)

The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay of execution under Order 42, Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the application lacked merit due to three main reasons: (1) there was an unexplained delay of almost four months in filing the application after judgment; (2)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 15430 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mepukori Pere; Defendant: Samuel Gicheru; Defendant: Endolvine Investment Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 572 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MN Gicheru
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Jurisdiction of Court, Rent Arrears, Lease Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Jurisdiction of Court Rent Arrears Lease Disputes

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mepukori Pere

Plaintiff

Samuel Gicheru

Defendant

Endolvine Investment Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay of execution.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of execution is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay of execution under Order 42, Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the application lacked merit due to three main reasons: (1) there was an unexplained delay of almost four months in filing the application after judgment; (2) the applicants had not acted equitably, being in rent arrears exceeding Kshs 2 million since February 2020, with no evidence of payment; and (3) there was no guarantee that the applicants, who had no valid lease and were in arrears, would pay the respondent if their appeal failed. Consequently, the court dismissed the application with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated January 11, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.