[2021] KECA 621 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated the existence of arguable points in the intended appeal, specifically regarding whether the Environment and Land Court erred in granting orders over a property not subject to the originating summons and whether the ingredients of adverse possession were properly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECA 621 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Agnes Wambui; Respondent: James Macharia Mwangi
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 240 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for stay of execution granted
- Judges
- AK Murgor, A Mohammed, S ole Kantai
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Adverse Possession, Transfer of Land, Appeals Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Agnes Wambui
Applicant
James Macharia Mwangi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal against the judgment of the Environment and Land Court.
- 2 Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay of execution is not granted.
- 3 Whether the Environment and Land Court erred in granting orders over a property not subject to the originating summons.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated the existence of arguable points in the intended appeal, specifically regarding whether the Environment and Land Court erred in granting orders over a property not subject to the originating summons and whether the ingredients of adverse possession were properly established. The Court further held that, absent a stay of execution, the transfer of the suit property to the respondent could render the appeal nugatory, as the property might be placed beyond the applicant's reach. The applicant thus satisfied both limbs required for the grant of a stay of execution: the appeal is arguable, and the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is...
Court Disposition
application for stay of execution granted
Orders
- Stay of execution of the orders and judgment of the Environment and Land Court in ELC No. 281 of 2016 delivered on 8th December, 2017 is granted pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
- Costs of the motion will be in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: MURGOR, J. MOHAMMED & KANTAI, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 240 OF 2018
BETWEEN
AGNES WAMBUI.............................................................................APPLICANT
AND
JAMES MACHARIA MWANGI.................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an application for stay of execution of the Judgment of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mary Gitumbi, J.) dated 8thDecember, 2017
in
E.L.C. No. 281 of 2016)
********************
RULING OF THE COURT
It is prayed in the Motion brought under rules 5 (2) (b) and 42 (1) of theCourt of Appeal Rulesthat we grant stay of execution of the orders and Judgment of the Environment and Land Court (“ELC”) in ELC Case No. 281 of 2016delivered on 8th December, 2017 and all consequential orders pending hearing and determination of the Motion and of an intended appeal. It is stated in grounds in support of the Motion and in an affidavit of the applicant, Agnes Wambui,that the intended appeal is arguable and raises substantive mattersof law; that the appeal will be rendered nugatory and the applicant will suffer substantial irreparable loss and damage. Further, that L.R. No. LOC 18/Gachocho/1811 (the suit property)originally belonged to oneMwangi Karuma (deceased)and Letters of Administration had been granted to the applicant on 2nd April, 2013 and confirmed on 7th April, 2014; that ELC had delivered a Judgment vesting the applicant’s suit property in the respondent (James Macharia Mwangi) by adverse possession; that the suit property was not the subject of the Originating Summons in ELC; that ELC had ordered that the suit property to be transferred to the respondent, and the transfer documents had already been executed by the Deputy Registrar; that there was a real danger that the applicant would lose her property particularly as the Originating Summons was in respect of the property known as L.R. No. LOC 2/Gachocho/1811.
There was no replying affidavit when we considered the Motion virtually without hearing parties in view of the COVID-19 guidelines.
The principles that govern an application of this nature are well known. For an applicant to succeed he must, firstly, demonstrate that the appeal, or intended appeal, as the case may be, is arguable, which is the same as saying that it is not frivolous. Such an applicant, to succeed, must, in addition, show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay – see a summary of these principles in the case of Stanley Kinyanjui Kangethe v Tony Ketter & Others [2013] eKLR.
There are thirteen grounds of appeal set out in the draft Memorandum of Appeal attached to the Motion. It is proposed to be argued on appeal that the Judge erred in finding that ingredients of adverse possession had been proved; that the Judge erred in fact and in law in failing to find that the respondent had pleaded adverse possession over L.R. No. LOC 2/Gachocho/1811 but wrongly granted orders over a property L.R. No. LOC 18/Gachocho/1811. We find these not to be idle points, they are arguable points and as has been held before by this Court, an arguable point is not one that must succeed – See Dennis Mogambi Mongare v Attorney General & 3 Others Civil Application No. NAI.265 of 2011.
On the nugatory aspect the applicant says that the Deputy Registrar had already executed transfer forms as per the Judgment. If the suit property is transferred to the respondent it may be interfered with in a way that it would render it beyond the reach of the applicant and that may render the appeal nugatory, if it was to succeed.
The applicant has satisfied the principles applicable in an application of this nature. The application dated 13th August, 2018 is hereby granted. Costs of the Motion will be in the appeal.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2021.
A.K. MURGOR
......................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
J. MOHAMMED
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. ole KANTAI
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true
copy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR