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

Thelmax Contractors Limited v Kenya National Highway Authority & 2 others (Miscellaneous Criminal Application 58 of 2015) [2023] KEHC 20576 (KLR) (21 July 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEHC 20576 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
20576
Citation
[2023] KEHC 20576 (KLR)
Decided
21 July 2023
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

TypeMiscellaneous Criminal ApplicationPostureApplication dismissed with costsCoramWM MUSYOKA
Application dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant, Thelmax Contractors Limited, sought compensation from the Kenya National Highway Authority and two other respondents for damages. The 1st respondent, Kenya National Highway Authority, sought a stay of execution of the award due to potential prejudice from the applicant's execution of the award before the appeal is heard.

Issues

  • Application for stay of execution of the award
  • Application under the Government Proceedings Act

Reasoning

The 1st respondent is a Government agency and the law that should apply to these proceedings is the Government Proceedings Act. The issue of seeking a stay of execution of the decree herein should not arise as there is no chance of the decree being executed against the 1st respondent.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Interim order of stay of execution discharged

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Government Proceedings Act
⚠ 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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case