Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2018] KEELC 4845 (KLR)

Erasmas Sasaka Wachilonga v Simon Wachilonga Toli & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4845 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
10 January 2018
SMS. Mukunya
213 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant moved the High Court at Bungoma by an application brought under rule 2(2)(a) and 3(2) of the High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant sought two orders: an injunction restraining the plaintiff and an auctioneer from executing an order issued by the Deputy Registrar on 5 July 2017, and a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 29 November pending the outcome of summons to revoke a grant dated 13 March 2017. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the court was functus officio, that it had no jurisdiction to grant the orders sought, that the case was concluded, and that the provisions invoked by the applicant were wrong. The court agreed with the defendant's sentiments. Holding that judgment had been handed down on 29 November 2016 and that it was therefore functus officio, the court declined to entertain the application. The application was dismissed with costs. Judgment was read in open court in the presence of Mr. Kweyu for the plaintiff, with Wesutsa & Co. for the defendant and Chemutai as court assistant. No authorities were cited in the judgment and no separate opinions were rendered.

Key legal issues

#
01

Functus officio and jurisdiction to grant stay of execution and injunction

Holding

The court held that having rendered judgment it was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's application for stay and injunction.

Reasoning

The applicant invoked rule 2(2)(a) & 3(2) of the High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to seek restraint of execution and a stay pending summons to revoke a grant. The respondent countered that the court was functus officio, lacked jurisdiction, that the case was concluded, and that the provisions invoked were wrong. The court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the application with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court that has delivered its final judgment is functus officio and cannot entertain post-judgment applications of the kind brought

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs awarded to the defendant/respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 2(2)(a) & 3(2) of the High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (invoked by the applicant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Erasmas Sasaka Wachilonga v Simon Wachilonga Toli & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4845 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4845/eng@2018-01-10

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