Florence Nafula Wafula v Evans Chetambe Wafula & another [2017] KEELC 2823 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Bungoma refused to reverse an ex-parte judgment or stop execution because the defendants had been served and their property had already been attached.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the exparte judgment should be set aside for want of service
The application failed because the record showed the applicant was served with the hearing notice and chose not to attend court.
The respondent produced an affidavit of service on the court file showing service of a hearing notice on 6/7/2015. The applicant had also been served with the pleadings and filed a defence, undermining his claim of non-service. On that evidence the court found the grounds asserting non-service to be unmerited.
Whether stay of execution could issue after execution had taken place
No; the court cannot stay what has already taken place.
The applicant's own grounds admitted that execution had taken place, including proclamation and attachment of the defendants' animals by the auctioneer. Since the execution was complete, the relief of stay was spent and the court declined to grant it.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot stay execution that has already been carried out; the remedy of stay is unavailable post-execution.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th December is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Florence Nafula Wafula v Evans Chetambe Wafula & another [2017] KEELC 2823 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2823/eng@2017-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.