[2001] KEHC 604 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 604 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had failed to satisfy the requirements of Order XLI Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for the grant of a stay of execution. The court further held that the grounds advanced by the applicants were more appropriately addressed in an application before the Court of Appeal under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KEHC 604 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Washington O. Okeyo; Defendant: Kenya Breweries Limited; Defendant: Tembo Co-operative Savings & Credit Society
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1787 of ??
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
T Mbaluto
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals, Civil Procedure Rules, Court Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeals Civil Procedure Rules Court Jurisdiction

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

Washington O. Okeyo

Plaintiff

Kenya Breweries Limited

Defendant

Tembo Co-operative Savings & Credit Society

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements for grant of stay of execution under Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court is the appropriate forum for the application for stay pending appeal after an appeal has been filed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had failed to satisfy the requirements of Order XLI Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for the grant of a stay of execution. The court further held that the grounds advanced by the applicants were more appropriately addressed in an application before the Court of Appeal under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, rather than before the High Court. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.