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

IYE MOHAMED BAKARI v MAWENI ESTATES’ LIMITED & 2 others [2006] KEHC 1688 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 1688 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1688
Citation
[2006] KEHC 1688 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for stay of execution pending appealCoramL. NJAGI
The court grants the application for stay of execution pending appeal and orders the parties to observe the status quo, keep the purchase money in an interest-earning account, and expeditiously prosecute the appeal.

Facts

The appellant, IYE MOHAMED BAKARI, owns a house which was sold by the first respondent, MAWENI ESTATES’ LIMITED, and the second respondent, RITHEMU AUCTIONEERS. The appellant filed an application for the return of the house, which was dismissed by the Resident Magistrate.

Issues

  • Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be granted
  • Whether the appellant deserves protection pending the appeal

Reasoning

The court finds that the application was made without unreasonable delay and that the appellant would suffer substantial loss if the order is not made. The sale price of the house is considered to be more than enough security.

Outcome

Granted

Orders

  • The parties will observe and maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
  • The purchase money be kept in an interest earning account in a reputable bank in the joint names of the advocates
  • The appellant do expeditiously prosecute the appeal so that the same is heard within one year from today
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the appeal
  • The parties be at liberty to apply
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case