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

Peter Masula Killingo v Grace Nabiki Masula [2021] KECA 909 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 909 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
909
Citation
[2021] KECA 909 (KLR)
Decided
5 March 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of an intended appealCoramR.N. NAMBUYE, ASIKE-MAKHANDIA, S. ole KANTAI
Holding

The Motion is allowed and the execution of the Judgment of the High Court sitting at Meru dated 14th April, 2020 is stayed pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.

Facts

The High Court of Kenya at Meru (Mabeya, J.) decreed that the respondent (Grace Nabiki Masula) was entitled to 50% of the properties known as Nyaki/Mulanthankari/450 and Kitharene Adjudication Section Nos. 1411 and 1567; that the properties be valued and the applicant, Peter Masula Killingo pay to the respondent 50% of the value of the properties in default execution to issue.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal is arguable
  2. Whether the Judge was wrong to hold that property acquired by the applicant through inheritance was part of matrimonial property
  3. Whether the Judge was right to order that the parties to the marriage were bound to share matrimonial property at 50% each

Reasoning

The Court found the appeal to be arguable and noted that the respondent has valued the properties and is in the process of execution, which would render the intended appeal nugatory.

Outcome

The Motion is allowed and the execution of the Judgment of the High Court sitting at Meru dated 14th April, 2020 is stayed.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the Judgment of the High Court sitting at Meru dated 14th April, 2020

Remedies

  • Costs of the Motion will abide the appeal

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & Others [2103] eKLR
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