[1997] KECA 348 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated an arguable appeal as required for a stay of execution. The grounds proposed by the applicant did not satisfy the threshold under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which limits second appeals to points of law or substantial procedural defects. The Court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] KECA 348 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Alfayo Njiru Jackson; Respondent: Jane Betha Wandia Jackson
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 193 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- JE Gicheru, AB Shah, GS Pall
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Land Transfer Disputes, Family Land Arrangements
- 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
Alfayo Njiru Jackson
Applicant
Jane Betha Wandia Jackson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal raises arguable points of law under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
- 3 Whether the respondent should be restrained from dealing with the suit land pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated an arguable appeal as required for a stay of execution. The grounds proposed by the applicant did not satisfy the threshold under section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which limits second appeals to points of law or substantial procedural defects. The Court was not satisfied that the respondent should be deprived of the fruits of her judgment. However, to preserve the subject matter of the appeal, the Court ordered that if the suit land is registered in the respondent's name during the pendency of the appeal, she should not transfer, alienate, or part with possession until the appeal is determined.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
- If an appeal is duly filed and if during the pendency of that appeal the suit land is registered in the respondent's name, she shall not transfer, alienate, or part with possession thereof or any part thereof until the hearing and final determination of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: GICHERU, SHAH & PALL JJ)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.NAI. 193 OF 1997 (83/97 UR)
BETWEEN
ALFAYO NJIRU JACKSON.............................................APPLICANT
AND
JANE BETHA WANDIA JACKSON...............................RESPONDENT
(An application for stay of Execution pending the hearing and determination
of an intended appeal of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya
at Embu (Hon. Justice Etyang) dated 7th May, 1997
in
H.C.C.AP. NO. 50 OF
RULING OF THE COURT
This is an application for stay of execution of the appellate decree dated 7th May, 1997 passed by Etyang J. in Civil Appeal No.50 of 1996.
The applicant is the brother of the respondent. By a family arrangement, it was allegedly agreed that land parcel Ngandori/Kirigi/3059 measuring 6 acres or thereabouts shall be transferred by the respondent and her mother in favour of the applicant and in return the applicant shall transfer Ngandori/Kirigi/2174 measuring 4. 5 acres or thereabouts in favour of the respondent. The respondent's case in the subordinate court was that although she and her mother had already transferred parcel 3059 in favour of the applicant and although the land control board had given its consent to the transfer, in exchange, of parcel 2174, the applicant had refused or failed to transfer the said parcel No.2174 in favour of the respondent.
The dispute in the subordinate court was referred to a panel of elders who made the award in favour of the respondent. The applicant appealed to the High Court against the judgment entered by the subordinate court in pursuance of the award and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
The intended appeal to this court can lie only on limited grounds mentioned in section 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Broadly speaking, the 2nd appeal to this court can only be if the decision of the superior court is contrary to law or to some usage or if the court failed to determine any point of law or if there is a substantial procedural defect which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the superior court upon the merits. We have gone through the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal and we are not certain at this stage that the applicant has an arguable appeal and we do not feel satisfied that the respondent should be kept away from the fruits of the judgment in her favour. We therefore dismiss the application with costs. However we order that if an appeal is duly filed and if during the pendency of that appeal the suit land is registered in the respondent's name, she shall not transfer or alienate or part with possession thereof or any part thereof until the hearing and final deterDmaitneadt iotnh iso f3 1tshta td aayp poefa lO.ctober, 1997.
J.E. GICHERU
.............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.B. SHAH
............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
G.S. PALL
............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR