Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application No. Nai. 48 of 2002 (UR.28/2002)

J.A. Amendi T/A Amena Amendi J. & Co. Advocates v Joshua Ombango Odera [2002] KECA 108 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
20 June 2002
RKR. O. KwachALA. A. LakhaEOE. Owuor
149 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Once the money owed is paid, Kenya's Court of Appeal will not keep a request to stop collection alive — this application was dismissed with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application to the Court of Appeal at Nairobi for a stay of execution pending an appeal against the ruling of Waki, J in H.C. O.S. No. 1496 of 2001 delivered on 16th January 2002. The applicant was J.A. Amendi trading as Amena Amendi J. & Co. Advocates, and the respondent was Joshua Ombango Odera. The coram comprised Kwach, Lakha and Owuor, JJ.A. The judgment takes the form of a short consensual order: at the applicant's own request, and with the respondent not objecting because he had been duly paid, the court dismissed the application. Costs of the application were awarded to the respondent, fixed at Shs 2,000/-, payable within ten days, failing which execution may issue. The order was made at Nairobi on 20th June 2002 and is signed by all three Judges of Appeal. The document contains no reasoning, no discussion of the law or authorities, and no separate opinions; it is a single order of the whole court. Its practical significance lies in the disposal of the stay application and the fixed costs order rather than in any binding statement of principle. The decision below was not reviewed on the merits; the court simply declined to grant the interlocutory relief sought.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether a stay of execution pending appeal should issue from the ruling of the High Court dated 16th January 2002

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution pending appeal should be granted

Holding

The application was dismissed, effectively by consent, the respondent having been duly paid and not objecting

Reasoning

The judgment records only that the applicant requested the dismissal and the respondent, having been duly paid, did not object. The court accordingly dismissed the application with fixed costs. No substantive legal analysis or reasoning on the merits of the stay is set out in the order.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the party in whose favour a stay is sought has been duly paid and does not object, the application for stay may be dismissed with costs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for stay of execution stands dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of Shs 2,000/- payable to the respondent within 10 days, failing which execution may issue

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

RK
majority
AL
majority
EO
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C. O.S. No. 1496 of 2001
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal (application for stay of execution pending appeal under the Court of Appeal's rules; no specific provision stated in the judgment)

Relief refused

#

Stay of execution pending appeal

The application was dismissed, the respondent not objecting having been duly paid

p. 2

Costs

Costs of the application awarded to the respondent, fixed at Shs 2,000/-, payable within 10 days failing which execution may issue

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

At the applicant's request and the respondent not objecting having been duly paid. This application stands dismissed with costs at Shs 2,000/- payable within 10 days failing which execution may issue.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of stay application

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The document is a certified copy of a brief consensual order; it contains no reasoned judgment, no framed issues and no discussion of authorities, limiting the extractable holdings

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "J.A. Amendi T/A Amena Amendi J. & Co. Advocates v Joshua Ombango Odera [2002] KECA 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Application No. Nai. 48 of 2002 (UR.28/2002). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/108/eng@2002-06-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.