[1997] KECA 172 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 172 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that it had an arguable appeal against the order of the superior court granting a mandatory injunction to the respondents. The court, after considering the submissions and the record, concluded that the application for stay was unmeritorious as no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] KECA 172 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Prudential Drycleaners Limited; Respondent: Rao Jaivirsinthhji N. T/A Darbar Wholesalers; Respondent: Patrick C. Kinuthia T/A Equatorial Accountancy; Respondent: Isaac W. Njoroge T/A Umoja Cushion Repairs; Respondent: Nancy W. Ngige T/A Nan Hot Spot
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 126 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
JE Gicheru
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Mandatory Injunctions, Appeals Process, Possession of Premises
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Mandatory Injunctions Appeals Process Possession of Premises

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prudential Drycleaners Limited

Applicant

Rao Jaivirsinthhji N. T/A Darbar Wholesalers

Respondent

Patrick C. Kinuthia T/A Equatorial Accountancy

Respondent

Isaac W. Njoroge T/A Umoja Cushion Repairs

Respondent

Nancy W. Ngige T/A Nan Hot Spot

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal against the order granting a mandatory injunction to the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution of the superior court's order should be granted pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that it had an arguable appeal against the order of the superior court granting a mandatory injunction to the respondents. The court, after considering the submissions and the record, concluded that the application for stay was unmeritorious as no substantial grounds had been shown to warrant the exercise of its discretion in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the application for stay was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay is dismissed with costs to the respondents.