[2021] KEHC 2603 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 2603 (KLR)

The court found that the principal application, dated 19th July 2019, was fundamentally defective as it failed to disclose the suit or judgment from which stay was sought and was unsupported by any documentary evidence. Without such essential information, the court could not grant any logical or effective orders....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 2603 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Protus Waswa; Respondent: National Cereals and Produce Board
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 169 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Application, Dismissal for Non Attendance, Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Reinstatement of Application Dismissal for Non Attendance Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Out of Time

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Protus Waswa

Applicant

National Cereals and Produce Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement of Dismissed Application

  1. 1 Whether the application for reinstatement of the dismissed application should be allowed.
  2. 2 Whether the principal application disclosed sufficient information to warrant reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the principal application, dated 19th July 2019, was fundamentally defective as it failed to disclose the suit or judgment from which stay was sought and was unsupported by any documentary evidence. Without such essential information, the court could not grant any logical or effective orders. Consequently, there was no basis to reinstate the dismissed application, as doing so would serve no practical purpose. The application for reinstatement was therefore dismissed, and costs awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 7th October 2020 is dismissed.
  • The respondent shall have the costs.