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

CLEMENT SAKIRI OPERE V MICHAEL WASONGA SINDA [2008] KEHC 2987 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 2987 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2987
Citation
[2008] KEHC 2987 (KLR)
Decided
28 April 2008
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppellant applied for stay of execution of a decree, respondent filed an application to dismiss the appeal and amended memorandum of appealCoramD. MUSINGA
Holding

The court dismisses the appellant's application for stay of execution and directs the appellant to amend his memorandum of appeal

Facts

Appellant Clement Sakiri Operé applied for stay of execution of a decree issued in Migori PMCC No.294 of 2000, respondent Michael Wasonga Sinda filed a replying affidavit stating he had suffered a bigger loss by constructing the building and was capable of refunding the sum if the appeal was successful

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's application for stay of execution of the decree should be granted
  2. Whether the respondent's application to dismiss the appeal and amended memorandum of appeal should be granted

Reasoning

The court considers the appellant's financial base and the respondent's ability to refund the sum. The court finds the appellant has not demonstrated substantial loss and the appeal is not likely to be rendered nugatory.

Outcome

The court dismisses the appellant's application for stay of execution and directs the appellant to amend his memorandum of appeal

Orders

  • Appellant's application for stay of execution dismissed
  • Respondent's application to dismiss the appeal and amended memorandum of appeal dismissed, but directed to amend his memorandum of appeal

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • BUTT VS RENT RESTRICTION TRIBUNAL [1982] KLR 417
  • ORUBA MATERNITY AND NURING HOME AND OTHERS VS PURSHOTAM V. PATEL, Civil application No.133 of 1996
  • UJAGAR SINGH VS RUNDA COFFEE LTD
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