[2021] KEHC 6639 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 6639 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had already filed an appeal (Nanyuki HC Civil Appeal No 15 of 2019) against the same ruling and order of the lower court that was the subject of the present application. The existence of the pending appeal rendered the current application for leave to appeal out of time and for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 6639 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel M T Githinji; Respondent: Francis Wachira Githae (T/A Large Power and Controls)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nanyuki
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 18 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Abuse of Process, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Out of Time Stay of Execution Abuse of Process Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel M T Githinji

Applicant

Francis Wachira Githae (T/A Large Power and Controls)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal out of time against the lower court's ruling and order of 29/08/2019.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of decree and consequential orders.
  3. 3 Whether the present application is an abuse of the court process given the existence of a pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had already filed an appeal (Nanyuki HC Civil Appeal No 15 of 2019) against the same ruling and order of the lower court that was the subject of the present application. The existence of the pending appeal rendered the current application for leave to appeal out of time and for stay of execution unnecessary and misconceived. The court held that the present application amounted to an abuse of the process of the court, as the applicant should be prosecuting the already pending appeal rather than filing duplicative applications. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 21/08/2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.