[2017] KEHC 4662 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 4662 (KLR)

The High Court found that the applicant had already obtained a stay of execution order in the Magistrate's Court, subject to depositing the decretal sum and costs within 30 days. The applicant failed to disclose this fact when seeking a similar order in the High Court under a certificate of urgency. The court held...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 4662 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Powerbase Limited; Respondent: Jhpiego Kenya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 664 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application struck out as incompetent and abuse of process
Judges
SN Riechi
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Abuse of Process, Non Disclosure, Security for Decretal Sum
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Abuse of Process Non Disclosure Security for Decretal Sum

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

Powerbase Limited

Appellant

Jhpiego Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution in the High Court is competent where a similar order was granted in the Magistrate's Court.
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of the existence of a prior stay order constitutes abuse of court process.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court should grant a stay of execution pending appeal in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the applicant had already obtained a stay of execution order in the Magistrate's Court, subject to depositing the decretal sum and costs within 30 days. The applicant failed to disclose this fact when seeking a similar order in the High Court under a certificate of urgency. The court held that such non-disclosure and the filing of a duplicative application amounted to an abuse of the court process. The proper course would have been to appeal the Magistrate's order, not to file a fresh application. Consequently, the application was found to be incompetent and was struck out.

Court Disposition

application struck out as incompetent and abuse of process

Orders

  • The application dated 20th February, 2017 is struck out.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.