SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Tabitha Wothaya Ndigirigi v Mohammed Mutuku Mutisya Nzioka & 4 others [2019] KECA 52 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 52 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
52
Citation
[2019] KECA 52 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for stay of execution pending appealCoramR. N. NAMBUYE, M.K. KOOME, HANNAH OKWENGU
Holding

The applicant has met the twin requirements for granting the order for stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court Rules, and an order of stay of execution is granted.

Facts

The disputed land, L.R No. 209/12734, was found to belong to Richard Kariru Ngunjiri, who was the 5th defendant in the suit. The applicant, Tabitha Wothaya Ndigirigi, failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court erred by failing to adjudicate the issues raised before it.
  2. Whether the learned Judge exercised her discretion wrongly.
  3. Whether the learned Judge misapprehended the facts and applied wrong legal principles to the prejudice of the applicant.

Reasoning

The applicant's intended appeal is arguable and has the potential to render the judgment nugatory if successful, as the 5th respondent could dispose of the suit property before the appeal is heard.

Outcome

The application for stay of execution is granted.

Orders

  • An order of stay of execution shall issue as prayed for in prayer 3 of the motion to the extent of restraining all the respondents by themselves or their agents, or servants from selling the suit property, alienating, disposing, charging or in any way interfering with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
  • The applicant shall file and serve the intended appeal within 90 days from the date hereof.
  • Costs of this motion shall be in the appeal.

Remedies

  • Stay of execution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the applicant's intended appeal.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case