Rufus & another v Kirima (Environment & Land Case 95 of 2013) [2023] KEELC 779 (KLR) (15 February 2023) (Ruling)
- Court
- Environment & Land Court
- Case number
- 779
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 779 (KLR)
- Decided
- 15 February 2023
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for leave to come on record and order of stay of executionCoramCK NZILI
Holding
The application is dismissed with costs, save for the leave to come on record.
Facts
Rufus and another filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding a judgment delivered on July 13, 2022. The defendant, George Kirima, opposed the application, claiming the appeal had no chances of success and that the plaintiff had not shown proof of his capability to pay costs.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has met the conditions for the grant of stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated substantial loss or damage
- Whether the plaintiff has offered security for the due performance of the decree
Reasoning
The court found the application lacking merits, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate substantial loss or damage and did not provide tangible evidence of such loss.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Civil Procedure Act
- Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (6)
- Antoine Ndiaye vs African Virtual University (2015) eKLR
- RWW vs EKW (2019) eKLR
- Charles Wahome Gethi vs Angela Wairimu Gethi (2008) eKLR
- Machira t/a Machira & Co Advocates vs East African Standard (supra)
- Aron C Sharma vs Ashana Raikundalia t/a Rairundalia & Co Advocate (supra)
- Consolidated Marine vs Nampijja and another Civil App No 93 of 1989 (Nairobi)
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.
Loading judgment…