[2022] KEHC 13456 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the orders sought because the applicant failed to provide the final judgment or sufficient material from the lower court proceedings to enable the court to exercise its discretion. Furthermore, the court questioned its own jurisdiction to entertain the application, as the underlying...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 13456 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patel Prabhakar; Respondent: Richard Chacha Imbosa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 8 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- WM Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Appeals From Magistrates Court
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patel Prabhakar
Applicant
Richard Chacha Imbosa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of execution and leave to appeal in a matter arising from a land dispute.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient material to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion to grant stay and leave to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the orders sought because the applicant failed to provide the final judgment or sufficient material from the lower court proceedings to enable the court to exercise its discretion. Furthermore, the court questioned its own jurisdiction to entertain the application, as the underlying dispute appeared to relate to land, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court as per the Constitution. The absence of a copy of the final judgment and relevant pleadings prevented the court from making a determination on jurisdiction or the merits of the application. The application was therefore dismissed for want of sufficient information and...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated January 28, 2020 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
Prabhakar v Imbosa (Miscellaneous Civil Application 8 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 13456 (KLR) (23 September 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 13456 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kakamega
Miscellaneous Civil Application 8 of 2020
WM Musyoka, J
September 23, 2022
Between
Patel Prabhakar
Applicant
and
Richard Chacha Imbosa
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application for determination is dated January 28, 2020. It principally seeks stay of execution of an order and a decree made in Kakamega PMCCC No 521 of 2012 pending appeal, and leave to file appeal against an undisclosed ruling delivered in and the decree made in the same suit.
2. The application is essentially unopposed, for there is no reply to it. That alone, however, would not be sufficient ground to grant the orders sought as prayed.
3. Firstly, the orders sought to be appealed against were made in 2013, and the applicant had a chance to appeal against them. He made efforts to, but the same were bungled, as appears from the rulings of March 8, 2018 and December 11, 2019 in Kakamega HCCA of 89 of 2013.
4. Secondly, a copy of the final judgment, from which the decree sought to be appealed against, is not attached. It would appear that the dispute arose from proceedings which had something to do with landed property. Under articles 162(2) and 165(5) of the Constitution, the High Court has no jurisdiction to determine disputes over land, and that extends to appeals arising from such disputes, where handled by the Magistrate’s court. I will need to determine whether I have jurisdiction to entertain the current application, and I can only make that determination upon having sight of the pleadings that were filed at the trial court, as well as the final judgment of the said court.
5. As it is, the applicant has not furnished adequate information, to facilitate exercise of the discretion that he is inviting me to exercise. In the circumstances I am unable to grant the orders that he seeks.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA ON THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022WM MUSYOKAJUDGEErick Zalo, Court AssistantMr. Maranga, instructed by Maranga Nyang’ute & Company, Advocates, for the applicant.Ms. Rauto, instructed by Rauto & Company, Advocates, for the respondent.