Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

MASTERMIND TOBACCO LIMITED & ANOTHER vs LILIAN MWENDWA (suing through her mither DOROTHY KAIRUTHI) [1998] KECA 148 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 60 OF 1998 BETWEEN 1. MASTERMIND TOBACCO LIMITED 2. DIONSIO KAMUNDE....................................APPLICANTS AND LILIAN MWENDWA (Suing through her mother DOROTHY KAIRUTHI.......................................RESPONDENT (An intended appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Hon. Mr. Justice Etyang given on the 12th day of March, 1998 in H.C. MISC. APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 1998) ************** RULING OF THE COURT We have before us an application for stay of execution of a decree of the Resident Magistrate's Court at Meru. The said Court declined to grant stay of execution pending appeal to the superior Court. The superior court in a miscellaneous application for stay of execution, pending appeal to that court declined to order any stay of execution. The intended appeal is against such refusal by the superior court. We have no notes of the learned judge before us. Nor do we have a copy of his ruling. In this state of affairs we are unable to say if the intended appeal is an arguable one or that it is not frivolous. In these circumstances we have no alternative but to dismiss this application, which we hereby do, with costs to the respondent. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 31st day of March, 1998. J. E. GICHERU ................

page 1 of 2

JUDGE OF APPEAL P. K. TUNOI ................ JUDGE OF APPEAL A. B. SHAH ............... JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. DEPUTY REGISTRAR

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.