Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
KadhiDismissedSuccession Cause – High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2015 (stay application therein)· [2017] KEKC 18 (KLR)

In re Estate of Mswabah Karama (Deceased) (Succession Cause 168 of 2008) [2017] KEKC 18 (KLR)

Kadhis' Court (Kadhi's Court, Mombasa)
18 August 2016
852 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan Kadhi's Court refused to pause estate eviction proceedings, ruling the application was filed by an improperly appointed lawyer and that filing an appeal doesn't automatically stop execution.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The interested party (applicant) moved the Kadhis' Court at Mombasa by notice of motion dated May 9, 2016 seeking a stay of proceedings and execution pending the hearing and determination of High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2015, complaining that she had been served with an eviction order in respect of Mombasa/Block XLI/174, a property she claimed as a beneficiary under the court's order of June 12, 2014, and that she would suffer irreparable damage and render her appeal nugatory if no stay issued. The petitioner opposed, noting she was not the person evicted and that she was welcome to live in the house allocated to them. The respondent also opposed, stating he had been evicted from Mombasa/XLI/174 and that the applicant refused to hand over possession of Mombasa/Block XVII/1275 awarded to him and others. The court held that Mr. Aboubakar, who filed the application, was not properly on record, as Mr. Olaba remained on record and there was no application for change of advocates nor leave of court after the main petition had been determined; the application was therefore incompetent. On the merits, the eviction order was not directed at the applicant, so she could suffer no damage; her right of appeal was protected but filing an appeal does not act as a stay, and no filed appeal was proved. The application was dismissed with costs. The respondent's request for handover of Mombasa/Block XVII/1275 was referred to his pending execution application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the application due to representation

Holding

The application is incompetent because Mr. Aboubakar was not properly on record for the applicant.

Reasoning

Mr. Olaba had come on record for the applicant by notice of appointment dated September 15, 2014. Mr. Aboubakar filed his notice of appointment on May 9, 2016, the same day as the application, with no application for change of advocates and no leave of court, which was required since the main petition had already been determined. The application was therefore incompetent.

p. 2
02

Whether stay of proceedings and execution should be granted

Holding

No basis for stay was established; the eviction order was not directed at the applicant and she could suffer no damage.

Reasoning

The applicant's complaint centred on eviction from Mombasa/Block XLI/174, but that property was allocated to her together with the petitioner, Dhukne and Swalhe, and the eviction order was not issued against her. The petitioner even invites her to the house. Her right of appeal is protected and exercised, but filing an appeal does not act as a stay, and no appeal was proved to have been filed in the High Court registry.

p. 2
03

Respondent's request for handover of Mombasa/Block XVII/1275

Holding

The court declined to grant those orders in this application.

Reasoning

The respondent sought orders compelling the applicant to hand over possession of Mombasa/Block XVII/1275, which had been awarded to him and others. The court held that such orders were not an issue in the stay application and that the respondent should prosecute his already-filed application for execution.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An advocate cannot come on record for a party after determination of the main petition without an application for change of advocates and leave of court; an application filed through an improperly appointed advocate is incompetent.
  • Filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings or execution; an appeal must be lodged within thirty days, and an extension of time is a matter for the High Court with leave.
  • While a losing party has a right of appeal, the winning party is entitled to enjoy the fruits of victory and litigation must come to an end.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is incompetent and lacks merit; it is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.Regarding the respondent's prayer for orders against the interested party, they may list their application for execution for necessary orders; those orders are not an issue in this application
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Kadhis' court over its own pending succession proceedings; appeal lies to the High Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "In re Estate of Mswabah Karama (Deceased) (Succession Cause 168 of 2008) [2017] KEKC 18 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Succession Cause – High Court Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2015 (stay application therein). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kekc/2017/18/eng@2017-09-14

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