[2001] KECA 159 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that, given the confusion regarding the authority of Salim Dhanji & Co. to act as advocates for the applicant and the fact that an application on this issue was pending before the High Court, it was appropriate to defer the hearing of the substantive application until the High Court had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KECA 159 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Suryakant Bhagwanji Raja Shah; Respondent: Aperit Investments S.A.; Respondent: Satishchandra Bhimji Shah
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 2 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Clarification of Advocate's Role
- Outcome
- Application adjourned; interim stay granted pending High Court determination on representation.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Representation of Parties, Advocate Authority
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Suryakant Bhagwanji Raja Shah
Applicant
Aperit Investments S.A.
Respondent
Satishchandra Bhimji Shah
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending Clarification of Advocate's Role
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay should be granted pending determination of the advocate's authority to act for the applicant.
- 2 Whether the High Court should first determine the issue of representation before the Court of Appeal proceeds.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that, given the confusion regarding the authority of Salim Dhanji & Co. to act as advocates for the applicant and the fact that an application on this issue was pending before the High Court, it was appropriate to defer the hearing of the substantive application until the High Court had determined the representation issue. To preserve the status quo and prevent prejudice, the court granted an interim stay as sought by the applicant, pending the High Court's determination. The application was adjourned for mention, and costs were reserved in the cause.
Court Disposition
Application adjourned; interim stay granted pending High Court determination on representation.
Orders
- The application is adjourned to 27.2.2001 for mention before the Court of Appeal.
- Interim stay as sought is granted until the hearing of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, SHAH & KEIWUA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 2 OF 2001 (UR.2/2001)
BETWEEN
SURYAKANT BHAGWANJI RAJA SHAH ........................... APPLICANT
AND
1. APERIT INVESTMENTS S.A.
2. SATISHCHANDRA BHIMJI SHAH .......................... RESPONDENTS
RULING OF THE COURT
There seems to be some confusion as to the role of Salim Dhanji & Co. as Advocates for the Applicant. An application in that respect is now pending in the High Court and which is to be heard on 26. 2.2001. In our view this should be determined first. In the result the application before us is adjourned to 27. 2.2001 for mention before this court. Until the hearing of this application, interim stay as sought before us is hereby granted. Costs in the cause.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 23rd day of January, 2001.
A. M. AKIWUMI ............................. JUDGE OF APPEAL
A. B. SHAH .......................... JUDGE OF APPEAL
M. KEIWUA .......................... JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR.