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

KHAMIS AHMED KHALIF vs - EZEKIEL KOTHI KALELI (SUING THRO’ MARIAM EZEKIEL KITHO [2004] KEHC 2183 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 2183 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2183
Citation
[2004] KEHC 2183 (KLR)
Decided
6 November 2004
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a chamber summons application seeking stay of execution until appeal to the Court of Appeal is heard and determined.CoramD.K. Maraga, Sir Udo Udoma
Holding

The application to amend the stay of execution application is procedurally incorrect and should be struck out.

Facts

The plaintiff seeks to amend an earlier application for stay of execution, which was raised by the defendants with a preliminary objection.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to amend the stay of execution application is procedurally correct.
  2. Whether the stay of execution application should be struck out based on the procedural rules.

Reasoning

Counsel for the defendants argued that the application should be brought by Notice of Motion, not a chamber summons, as per Ugandan cases. The court disagreed, citing Kenyan precedents that rules of procedure are underpinnings of justice and should not be strictly adhered to.

Outcome

The application to amend the stay of execution application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to amend the stay of execution application is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (4)
  • George Kizoya Vs Attorney General of Uganda [1966] E.A. 463
  • Microsoft Corporation Vs Mitsumi Computer Garage Ltd. & Another HCCC No. 810 of 2001
  • National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd. Vs Mutinda
  • Mawji Vs Arusha General Store [1970] E.A.
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 0.0 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case