[2021] KECA 872 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 872 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant failed to attach the relevant ruling, order, or proceedings upon which the intended appeal was based, nor did it provide a draft memorandum of appeal. Without these, the Court could not assess whether the intended appeal was arguable. The applicant's grievance regarding the draft...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 872 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Rhino Valley Lodge Limited; Respondent: Kenya Wildlife Services Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E005 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
FI Koome, AK Murgor
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Interlocutory Injunctions, Landlord Tenant Disputes, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Interlocutory Injunctions Landlord Tenant Disputes Appeals Process

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rhino Valley Lodge Limited

Applicant

Kenya Wildlife Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the threshold for grant of stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and not frivolous.
  3. 3 Whether the success of the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to attach the relevant ruling, order, or proceedings upon which the intended appeal was based, nor did it provide a draft memorandum of appeal. Without these, the Court could not assess whether the intended appeal was arguable. The applicant's grievance regarding the draft nature of the ruling was insufficient to meet the threshold for stay of execution. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the prerequisites for a rule 5(2)(b) application, and the motion was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The motion dated 4th March 2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.