[2021] KEELC 829 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 829 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not filed any appeal against the judgment delivered on 27th June 2018, and the Notice of Appeal lodged was only against the ruling on the review application, not the judgment itself. The application for stay was filed over two and a half years after the judgment, constituting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 829 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Waswa Chimoso; Defendant: Lawrence Daudi Chimoso
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 130 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Review of Judgment, Appeals Process, Substantial Loss, Unreasonable Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Review of Judgment Appeals Process Substantial Loss Unreasonable Delay

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Waswa Chimoso

Plaintiff

Lawrence Daudi Chimoso

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to stay of execution pending appeal in the absence of an appeal against the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated that substantial loss would result if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not filed any appeal against the judgment delivered on 27th June 2018, and the Notice of Appeal lodged was only against the ruling on the review application, not the judgment itself. The application for stay was filed over two and a half years after the judgment, constituting unreasonable delay. The applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if stay was not granted and did not provide security for due performance. Consequently, there was no legal basis to grant a stay of execution pending a non-existent appeal, and the application was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 4th February 2021 is dismissed with costs to the defendant.