[2020] KECA 298 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 298 (KLR)

The Court held that it had already delivered a final judgment in the matter, and therefore, the application for stay of execution or injunction under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules was misconceived and defective. The Court further found that the period within which the applicant could have transferred an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 298 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Nyakeri Nyabiba; Respondent: Peter Okiabera Omwenga
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 69 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution After Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GG Okwengu, A Mohammed, S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Injunctions, Land Transfer Disputes, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Injunctions Land Transfer Disputes Court of Appeal Rules

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Nyakeri Nyabiba

Applicant

Peter Okiabera Omwenga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution After Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal can grant a stay of execution or injunction after it has delivered a final judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order restraining the respondent from evicting tenants or collecting rent from the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant can limit the transfer to only part of the suit property contrary to the court's judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it had already delivered a final judgment in the matter, and therefore, the application for stay of execution or injunction under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules was misconceived and defective. The Court further found that the period within which the applicant could have transferred an alternative plot had expired, and the judgment clearly ordered the transfer of the entire suit property to the respondent. The applicant's attempt to limit the transfer to only part of the property was contrary to the judgment. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 29th May, 2019 is dismissed.
  • No stay of execution or injunction is granted.