Centenary Rural Development Bank Ltd v Odongpiou Stanislau Emmanuel (Miscellaneous Application No. 1371 of 2022)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and stay of execution. The applicant bank failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised serious questions meriting judicial consideration. The court held that where a review application has been properly determined on the merits and the applicant failed to satisfy the strict evidential standard under Order 46 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for discovery of new matter or evidence, the ground that the trial court wrongly applied a very high standard for review does not constitute a serious question of law meriting leave to appeal.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal and stay of execution dismissed
Facts
The applicant bank had earlier filed a review application (Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2021) which was dismissed by ruling dated 26 April 2022. In that ruling, the court held that the applicant had failed to take necessary steps to obtain a mortgage deed and failed to exercise due diligence when new matter or evidence was discovered. The applicant subsequently filed this application seeking leave to appeal against that ruling and stay of execution of damages and costs. The applicant argued that it had taken necessary steps and exercised due diligence, but the trial court wrongly applied a very high standard for review. The respondent's executrix opposed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process.
Issues
- Whether this application disclosed sufficient grounds for leave to appeal?
- Whether the Applicant raised sufficient grounds for orders of stay of execution?
- What remedies are available?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 15 Rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 46 Rule 3(2)
Cases cited (3)
- Sango Bay Estates Ltd and Others v Dresdner Bank A G [1971] 1 EA 17
- Kilama Tonny and Another v Mrs Grace Perpetua Otim (High Court Civil Appeal No. 031 of 2019)
- Degeya Trading Stores (U) Ltd v URA (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1996)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.