[2021] KEELC 324 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 324 (KLR)

The court found that the application was fatally defective as it was brought under the wrong provisions of law. The court had already delivered its judgment and granted a 45-day stay of execution, which was deemed sufficient time for the applicant to pursue an appeal or seek further orders from the Court of Appeal....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 324 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Zakaria Muigai Gakibe; Defendant: John Mwenja Ngumba (Administrator of the Estate of Andrew Kimani Ngumba); Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Limited; Defendant: Royal Builders and Investments Limited; Defendant: The Attorney General on behalf of The Commissioner for Lands; Defendant: Equity Bank Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 281 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Extension of Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Functus Officio, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Extension of Time Functus Officio Land Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zakaria Muigai Gakibe

Plaintiff

John Mwenja Ngumba (Administrator of the Estate of Andrew Kimani Ngumba)

Defendant

Kenya Commercial Bank Limited

Defendant

Royal Builders and Investments Limited

Defendant

The Attorney General on behalf of The Commissioner for Lands

Defendant

Equity Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Extension of Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend the order of stay of execution granted on 29th July 2021 by a further sixty days.
  2. 2 Whether the application is fatally defective for being brought under the wrong provisions of law.
  3. 3 Whether the court is functus officio in the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was fatally defective as it was brought under the wrong provisions of law. The court had already delivered its judgment and granted a 45-day stay of execution, which was deemed sufficient time for the applicant to pursue an appeal or seek further orders from the Court of Appeal. As such, the court held that it was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to grant a further extension of the stay of execution. The orders of stay previously granted had lapsed, and there was no pending application for stay of execution before the court. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the 1st, 3rd, and 5th defendants.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 8th September 2021 is dismissed with costs to the 1st, 3rd, and 5th defendants/respondents.