Matfam Ltd & 2 others v Jared Moranga (Suing as the Adminisrator of the Estate of the late Neelson Abed Onwonga) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Narok
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
J. M. Bwonwonga
Judgment Date
October 21, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Matfam Ltd & Others v Jared Moranga, focusing on the legal implications regarding estate administration. Discover key insights from this 2020 eKLR judgment.

Case Brief: Matfam Ltd & 2 others v Jared Moranga (Suing as the Adminisrator of the Estate of the late Neelson Abed Onwonga) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Matfam Ltd & 2 Others v. Jared Moranga (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Neelson Abed Onwonga)
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No 15 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Narok
- Date Delivered: October 21, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): J. M. Bwonwonga
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following central legal issues:
1. Whether the applicable law is Order 42 Rule 6 (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules or Order 40 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Whether there is a competent appeal before this court.
3. Who bears the costs of this application?

3. Facts of the Case:
The appellants, Matfam Ltd, Lanet Matfam Resort Ltd, and Elijah Matibo, applied for a temporary injunction to prevent the respondent, Jared Moranga, from executing a decree against their property. This matter arose from a prior case (Narok CMCC No. 41 of 2014) where the respondent had successfully sued the appellants for a road traffic accident involving a vehicle owned by the first appellant. The appellants claimed they were not adequately represented in that case, leading to a judgment against them without their knowledge. They argued that the respondent had begun execution proceedings, prompting their application for an injunction to protect their property while they appealed the prior rulings.

4. Procedural History:
Initially, the appellants' applications to set aside the ex parte judgment and to challenge the attachment of their property were dismissed by the chief magistrate. The appellants subsequently filed an appeal against these decisions. In response, the respondent opposed the application, asserting that the appellants had failed to satisfy the requirements for a temporary injunction and that their appeal was not competent due to delays in filing.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Order 42 Rule 6 (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires the applicant to demonstrate substantial loss, that the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay, and that the application was made without unreasonable delay. It also necessitates the provision of security for the performance of the decree.
- Case Law: The court reviewed previous rulings related to the requirements for granting a stay of execution and temporary injunctions. The ruling highlighted the importance of timely appeals and the necessity of complying with procedural rules.
- Application: The court found that the appellants had not demonstrated their ability to provide security nor shown that they would suffer substantial loss. Additionally, the appeal was filed over a year after the judgment, violating the 30-day requirement under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The court deemed the application an abuse of the court process since the appellants attempted to circumvent the requirements of Order 42 Rule 6.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appellants' application for a temporary injunction, concluding that there was no competent appeal before it and that the appellants had failed to meet the necessary legal criteria. The respondent was awarded costs as the successful party.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled against the appellants in their attempt to obtain a temporary injunction to prevent the execution of a decree. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules in civil litigation, particularly concerning timely appeals and the prerequisites for obtaining a stay of execution. The decision highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that legal processes are followed to maintain judicial integrity and prevent abuse of the court system.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Matfam-Ltd--2-others-v-Jared-Moranga-Suing-as-the-Adminisrator-of-the-Estate-of-the-late-Neelson-Abed-Onwonga-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2364_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries