Michael Kibirango v Shell (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 75 of 2001)
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 of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution because it was incompetent. Although the applicant argued the application related to the ex parte judgment of 13 February 2001 in Civil Suit No. 624/95, the notice of appeal on the file was directed only at the High Court ruling of 19 September 2001. Since a valid notice of appeal under rule 75 is a prerequisite for a stay under rule 5(2)(b), and no notice of appeal related to the intended appeal in the civil suit existed, the application did not conform with rule 5(2)(b) and was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs for being incompetent
Facts
The applicant, Michael Kibirango, had been sued by Shell (U) Ltd in High Court Civil Suit No. 624/95 and an ex parte judgment was entered against him on 13 February 2001. He applied to the High Court for a stay of execution, which was rejected in Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2001 by a ruling delivered on 19 September 2001. He then brought this application to the Court of Appeal seeking a stay of execution pending an intended appeal, contending that if execution proceeded and his house was sold he would suffer irreparable loss and have nowhere to go. The notice of appeal on the file was expressed to be against the High Court decision of 19 September 2001, not against the ex parte judgment in the civil suit that the stay application in substance concerned.
Issues
- Whether the application for stay of execution concerned the ex parte judgment of 13 February 2001 or the ruling of 19 September 2001.
- Whether the application was properly lodged under rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal given the requirement for a valid notice of appeal under rule 75.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs of the application to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.1(3)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.5(2)(b)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(1)(2)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.75
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.