[2019] KEELC 2469 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2469 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the grant of a stay of execution or withdrawal of the lower court proceedings. Specifically, the applicants did not provide evidence of having applied for the necessary proceedings to prepare their appeal, nor did they show how they...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2469 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Solomon Limpaso Pesi & Others; Respondent: Naisarisaru Ene Ololdapash & Another
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Withdrawal of Lower Court Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Withdrawal of Proceedings, Eviction Orders, Appeal Process
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Withdrawal of Proceedings Eviction Orders Appeal 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Limpaso Pesi & Others

Applicant

Naisarisaru Ene Ololdapash & Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Withdrawal of Lower Court Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the court's order issued on 15th December, 2017 pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings in Kilgoris Principal Magistrate’s Court Environment and Land Court No. 117 of 2018 should be withdrawn.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for the grant of a stay of execution or withdrawal of the lower court proceedings. Specifically, the applicants did not provide evidence of having applied for the necessary proceedings to prepare their appeal, nor did they show how they would suffer loss if the orders were not granted. The court also noted that the applicants had participated in the proceedings after the file was transferred and that their claim of logistical difficulty was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the application was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 1st April, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.