[2019] KEELC 5070 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 5070 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with the order to deposit security, as the reason advanced was lack of communication, which was not substantiated. Furthermore, the respondent's evidence that execution had already taken place was not rebutted by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 5070 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Samuel Thilari M'Maitai; Respondent: Susan Kairuthi Mbirithi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 27 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Elc Appeal / Ruling on Application to Extend Time and Reinstate Conditional Stay
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to respondent
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Security for Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Stay of Execution Security for Costs

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Thilari M'Maitai

Appellant

Susan Kairuthi Mbirithi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Elc Appeal / Ruling on Application to Extend Time and Reinstate Conditional Stay

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to extension of time to deposit security for costs as previously ordered.
  2. 2 Whether the conditional stay of execution should be reinstated pending hearing of the earlier application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with the order to deposit security, as the reason advanced was lack of communication, which was not substantiated. Furthermore, the respondent's evidence that execution had already taken place was not rebutted by the applicant. As a result, the legal landscape had changed by the time the application was presented, making it impossible to reinstate the conditional stay. The court concluded that the application lacked merit and dismissed it with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 12.7.2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.