Wambugu Vet Pharm Ltd v Atlantis Life Science Ltd

2. It is trite law that a party is bound by it’s pleadings and so is this court. This application is filed under the provisions of Sections IA, 1 B, 3A and 78(1) and (2) and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 40 Rule I(a), 42 Rule 6 and 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Rules 3(1)(2) of the High Court (Practice and Procedures) Rules of the Judicature Act and all other enabling Provisions of the law. The appellant has in essence brought an omnibus application wherein it craves for admission of an unspecified notice of motion and main suit for hearing during the High Court vacation. It further prays for orders of stay of execution of the decree and warrants issued on 10th July 2026 in Milimani SCCCOMM/ E105324/2025. 3. The purpose of the Chamber Summons is to bring out the urgency and persuade this court to hear a substantive motion during the High Court August Recess. Whereas the appellant has through Mr Charles Gathongo Kaguu deposed that execution has commenced and this court may well be inclined to hear a substantive motion, the Appellant has in it’s pleading not led this court to the main motion that it wants this court to consider during vacation. A party’s pleadings must speak for themselves and it is not the duty of this court to start raking it’s mind in an strenuous endeavour of attempting to infer, deduce or investigate what the intended main motion is: such an exercise will reduce this court to a combatant and it would then have descended into the arena; that is an invitation that this court declines to honour. 4. The appellant cannot approach this court in an omnibus application and expect to be granted it’s prayers, yet the issue of admission of an application for hearing during the High Court Vacation takes precedence over the hearing of a substantive application. There are two distinct statutory prescribed procedures for moving the court; the first application for admission for hearing during the Court Recess is by way of a Chamber Summons and the second one is by a Notice of Motion. An amalgamation of the two will not suffice. 5. In light of my finding hereinabove, the appellant’s prayer for stay of execution of the judgment delivered in Milimani SCCCOMM/E105324/2025 becomes moot. 5. The appellant has also invited this court to hear the main suit during the recess. This is a rather absurd prayer given that this Court has been approached by the appellant in it’s appellate jurisdiction. There is no origin suit pending before this court. 6. Premised upon the foregoing reasons, the orders that commend themselves to this court are as follows:i) This application is dismissed for being want of disclosure of the substantive motion that it seeks it’s admission for hearing during High Court Recces and for being an omnibus one. ii) The appellant cant shall bear it’s own costs of this application. It is hereby so ordered DELIVERED, SIGNED AND DATED AT MILIMANI THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026. M. S. SHARIFF JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12869/eng@2026-08-13 2

page 2 of 2