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

Kikuvi v Yusuf & 2 others (Civil Application E062 of 2021) [2022] KECA 454 (KLR) (18 March 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KECA 454 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
454
Citation
[2022] KECA 454 (KLR)
Decided
18 March 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for stay of execution of judgment and subsequent orders of the Environment and Land CourtCoramAngote, As Nambuye, JW LESSIT, W. Karanja
Holding

The application is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents only, as the 3rd respondent did not participate in the application.

Facts

The applicant, Jeremiah Musembi Kikuvi, sought rectification and cancellation of the 1st respondent's title over a property known as Lake Kenyatta II Settlement Scheme No. 452, Lamu, on the basis that it was allocated to him in September 2002 after the 1st respondent, Ali Ibido Yusuf, failed to comply with the conditions of allotment. The ELC dismissed the applicant's suit, and the applicant applied for extension of time, which was dismissed due to non-appearance.

Issues

  1. Reinstatement of the application for extension of time
  2. Stay of execution of the judgment and subsequent orders of the Environment and Land Court

Reasoning

The application is dismissed because it is out of time and lacks a plausible explanation for the delay. The prayer for stay of execution is also dismissed as the intended appeal is unlikely to be successful.

Outcome

Dismissed

Orders

  • Application for reinstatement of the application dismissed
  • Application for stay of execution of the judgment and subsequent orders of the Environment and Land Court dismissed

Remedies

  • Costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents only

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Ngugi vs. Thogo (Civil Application No.372 of 2018) [2021] KECA 88 (KLR)(civ)(22 October 2021)(Ruling)
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case