REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU Civil Case 42 of 1999 GICHUHI GITHUMBU…………...………………...PLAINTIFF VERSUS JOHN CERERE MWANGI………………………..DEFENDANT RULING The application dated 5/7/2005 is brought under Section 3A Order XX1 Rules 22 (1) and Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is seeking orders of Stay of Execution of the Judgment delivered on 16/3/2005. The same also seeks orders of review of the said Judgment and that the matter be heard denovo. Having heard both counsel on the same, my finding is that this application is fatally defective and it does not give me the basis to decide on its merits if it has any merit at all. I agree with Mr. Munene for the Respondent that the application has flouted many provisions of the law and this is inexcusable given that it was drawn and filed by a qualified counsel. Firstly, Order XXI Rule 22 deals with decrees which have been sent to another court for execution. The decree herein if any has been extracted is not a decree that has been sent to this court for execution and so that provision is totally inapplicable in this case. Secondly, it is trite law now that in an application for review, the decree or order in question must be extracted and annexed to the application – see the case of GULAM HUSSEIN MULLA JIVANJI etc Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1930. It matters not that the decree or order in question is in the same court file. The aggrieved party has the duty to correct it and annex it to the application. Without the decree or order in question, this court has nothing to review and this application must fail at this stage. For those 2 reasons, I strike out this application with costs to the respondent/plaintiff. W. KARANJA JUDGE Delivered, signed and dated at Embu this 17TH day of June 2009. In presence of:-Mr Njenga for Ndena & Mr. Munene for Respondent W. KARANJA JUDGE
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.