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

George Wanyonyi Lusweti v Marita Nanjala Lusweti

Lusweti v Lusweti (Civil Miscellaneous Application E120 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 17856 (KLR) (8 October 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 17856 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT BUNGOMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E120 OF 2025 MS SHARIFF, J OCTOBER 8, 2025 BETWEEN GEORGE WANYONYI LUSWETI ......................................................... APPLICANT AND MARITA NANJALA LUSWETI ......................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. Whereas the Applicant George Wanyonyi Lusweti has moved this court for orders of stay of execution of the Judgement delivered on 8.2.2024 in Bungoma Succession Cause No. 207/2022, he had admitted that he did not make that application in the first instance before the lower court. 2. Mr sichangi for the Respondent has submitted that this application is improperly before this court and that the same is vitiated by the doctrine of exhaustion wherefore it ought to be dismissed. 3. I have considered the application herein dated 18.5.2025 the affidavit in support thereof sworn by the Applicant on even date and I have also considered the grounds of opposition filed on 7/10/2025 by the respondent and I do agree with the Respondent that the Applicant has not exhausted his chances before the lower court. Further the applicant has not obtained leave of the lower court to move this court. I thus find that this application is prematurely before the court and I thus strike it out with no orders as to costs. 4. This file is hereby marked as closed. DELIVERED, SIGNED AND DATED AT BUNGOMA THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025. M.S. SHARIFF JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17856/eng@2025-10-08 1

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.