[2002] KECA 49 (KLR)
The Court dismissed the application for stay of execution because neither the applicant nor their counsel appeared at the hearing, despite the hearing date having been fixed by consent. The dismissal was made pursuant to rule 55(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which empowers the Court to dismiss a motion for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KECA 49 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ramesh Chandra Jantilal Sheth, Jantilal Hansraj Sheth, Chandrakant Jantilal Sheth t/a Maganlal & Company; Respondent: V.J. Ruparalia t/a Ruparalia & Co.
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 384 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed for non-attendance
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Dismissal for Nonattendance
- 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
Ramesh Chandra Jantilal Sheth, Jantilal Hansraj Sheth, Chandrakant Jantilal Sheth t/a Maganlal & Company
Applicant
V.J. Ruparalia t/a Ruparalia & Co.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution should be heard in the absence of the applicant and their counsel.
- 2 Whether the motion should be dismissed for non-attendance under rule 55(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the application for stay of execution because neither the applicant nor their counsel appeared at the hearing, despite the hearing date having been fixed by consent. The dismissal was made pursuant to rule 55(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which empowers the Court to dismiss a motion for non-attendance. The respondent was awarded the costs of the motion.
Court Disposition
application dismissed for non-attendance
Orders
- The motion is dismissed under rule 55(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- The respondent shall have the costs of the motion.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: OMOLO, SHAH & BOSIRE JJ.A)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI.384 OF 1996
BETWEEN
RAMESH CHANDRA JANTILAL SHETH )
JANTILAL HANSRAJ SHETH )
CHANDRAKANT JANTILAL SHETH
T/A MAGANLAL & COMPANY )............................................... APPLICANTS
AND
V.J. RUPARALIA T/A RUPARALIA ) & CO. )......................... RESPONDENT
Application for stay of execution in an intended appeal
from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
(Mr. Justice Juma) dated 9th May 1996
in
H.C.C.C. NO.1053 OF 1995)
********************
ORDER OF THE COURT
The hearing date of this motion was fixed by consent. But Counsel for the applicant for some reason unknown to us is not present nor is his client, the applicant in the motion. That being the case the motion is dismissed under rule 55(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The respondent shall have the costs of the motion.
Made at Nairobi this 25th day of June, 2002.
R.S.C. OMOLO ...................... JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.B. SHAH ................... JUDGE OF APPEAL
S.E.O. BOSIRE .................. JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR