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

Odula v Wasianju (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 7 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6068 (KLR) (19 September 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KEELC 6068 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
6068
Citation
[2024] KEELC 6068 (KLR)
Decided
19 September 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a judgment and decreeCoramEC CHERONO, Gikonyo
Holding

The application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Odula, was aggrieved by the judgment and decree made on 23rd May, 2024, and has preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Defendant/Applicant, Wosianju, moved the court for a stay of execution of the judgment and decree pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree is without merit.
  2. Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss unless the orders sought are granted.
  3. Whether the applicant has given security for the due performance of the decree/order as may ultimately be binding on him.

Reasoning

The court found that the application was made without unreasonable delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss unless the orders sought are granted and did not give security for the due performance of the decree/order as may ultimately be binding on him.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • James Wangalwa & another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto (2012) 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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case