1. I have considered the applications dated 16th November 2023 and 1st December 2023 together with the affidavit sworn in support of even date in relation to the various applications and the replying affidavit sworn on 22nd January 2024.
2. The said applications relate to a request for extension of time to comply with conditions of stay orders issued by Chepkwony, J. on 9th October 2023.
3. Having considered the same, it is trite a court of concurrent jurisdiction may not overturn the orders of another judge of concurrent jurisdiction.
4. This court initially granted an extension of time to comply with the conditions of stay arising under a certificate of urgency filed ex parte. The court did not have full access to the previous orders issued on 9th October, 2023 by Chepkwony, J., a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
5. Her Ladyships orders stipulated that failure to comply with the conditions of stay would render the appeal dismissed.
6. There was also material non- disclosure of the above order on the part of the applicant.
7. In the premises, this court is of the view that despite compliance with its own orders granting extension of time, it may not overturn or review the previous orders issued by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
8. The orders of this court extending time to comply were accordingly made in error, and without knowledge of the said previous order, and the same are same is hereby vacated.
9. The applications are dismissed with costs.
2. The said applications relate to a request for extension of time to comply with conditions of stay orders issued by Chepkwony, J. on 9th October 2023.
3. Having considered the same, it is trite a court of concurrent jurisdiction may not overturn the orders of another judge of concurrent jurisdiction.
4. This court initially granted an extension of time to comply with the conditions of stay arising under a certificate of urgency filed ex parte. The court did not have full access to the previous orders issued on 9th October, 2023 by Chepkwony, J., a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
5. Her Ladyships orders stipulated that failure to comply with the conditions of stay would render the appeal dismissed.
6. There was also material non- disclosure of the above order on the part of the applicant.
7. In the premises, this court is of the view that despite compliance with its own orders granting extension of time, it may not overturn or review the previous orders issued by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
8. The orders of this court extending time to comply were accordingly made in error, and without knowledge of the said previous order, and the same are same is hereby vacated.
9. The applications are dismissed with costs.