[2019] KEHC 9363 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 9363 (KLR)

The court found that the underlying claim was over land, and therefore the applicant ought to have filed the matter in the Environment and Land Court, not the ordinary civil court. As such, the application for extension of time and stay of execution was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The court also noted that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 9363 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Timothy Marete; Respondent: Edward M’Ibiri; Respondent: Agatha Wanjiru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Case 138 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Appeal and for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Jurisdiction, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Stay of Execution Jurisdiction Appeals 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Marete

Applicant

Edward M’Ibiri

Respondent

Agatha Wanjiru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Enlarge Time for Appeal and for Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file an appeal.
  2. 2 Whether stay of execution of the judgment in Meru CMCC C. No. 407 of 2013 should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the underlying claim was over land, and therefore the applicant ought to have filed the matter in the Environment and Land Court, not the ordinary civil court. As such, the application for extension of time and stay of execution was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The court also noted that the respondents did not appear, and thus made no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 13th November 2018 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.