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

RYCE MOTORS LIMITED V JONATHAN KIPRONO RUTO & ANOTHER [2005] KEHC 576 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 576 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
576
Citation
[2005] KEHC 576 (KLR)
Decided
15 August 2005
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for stay pending appealCoramMARY KASANGO
Holding

The plaintiff's application for stay is granted, and the plaintiff is ordered to provide Kshs 7.5 million to the defendant's counsel within 30 days.

Facts

The plaintiff filed a claim for repairs to the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant filed a counterclaim. The Hon Justice Bosire found in favor of the plaintiff, and Hon Justice Osiemo found in favor of the defendant on the counterclaim.

Issues

  1. Is citation of the wrong order fatal to an application?
  2. Was the plaintiff's application for stay defeated by delay?

Reasoning

The court found that the plaintiff's application was not defective and that the defendant was not prejudiced by the faulty drafting of the application. The court also found that the plaintiff's delay was not inordinate.

Outcome

The plaintiff's application for stay is granted.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is ordered to provide Kshs 7.5 million to the defendant's counsel within 30 days.
  • The defendant's counsel is to open an interest-earning account with the provided amount in the names of the plaintiff's and defendant's advocates.

Remedies

  • The plaintiff is ordered to provide Kshs 7.5 million to the defendant's counsel within 30 days.
  • The defendant's counsel is to open an interest-earning account with the provided amount in the names of the plaintiff's and defendant's advocates.
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