[2018] KEELC 3323 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed without undue delay, as it was within the 60 days granted by the court. However, the defendant failed to demonstrate evidence of substantial loss if stay was not granted. The court noted evidence of wastage of the property by the defendant,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3323 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Arhendt Mutsanzi Mondi; Defendant: Lawrence Jumba
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 287 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Pending, Substantial Loss, Capacity to Sue, Estate Administration
- 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
Arhendt Mutsanzi Mondi
Plaintiff
Lawrence Jumba
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant has demonstrated sufficient cause for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the defendant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the defendant has demonstrated an arguable appeal with overwhelming chances of success.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed without undue delay, as it was within the 60 days granted by the court. However, the defendant failed to demonstrate evidence of substantial loss if stay was not granted. The court noted evidence of wastage of the property by the defendant, including cutting trees and burning bricks. Furthermore, the defendant did not show high chances of success on appeal, as he lacked capacity to sue on behalf of his late mother, not being the administrator of her estate. The court concluded that the application lacked merit and dismissed it with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
E & L CASE NO. 287 OF 2013
ARHENDT MUTSANZI MONDI.................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LAWRENCE JUMBA.................................DEFENDANT
RULING
The application dated 2. 8.2017 seeks orders that there be stay of execution of the judgment entered against the defendant on 21. 7.2017 pending the hearing and determination of the pending appeal. The application is based on grounds that the defendant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court entered on 21st July, 2017 and that the defendant intends to appeal against the said judgment herein and if the plaintiff is allowed to execute against the defendant the appeal will be rendered nugatory. That the defendant’s intended appeal has overwhelming chances of success. The defendant is prepared to comply with any such condition(s) as this Honourable court may deem just. The defendant states that should he comply with the decree of the court, and the intended appeal succeeds, the said defendant would suffer loss and damage. The defendant has sufficient cause for seeking the orders sought. The application is supported by the affidavit of Lawrence Jumba who states that he has preferred an appeal and that the plaintiff may prefer to evict him from the land anytime. He argues that the appeal has an overwhelming chance of success.
In the replying affidavit, Arhendt Mutsanzi Mondi states that the applicant has neither extracted the decree nor annexed a copy of the same to the Notice of Motion and that the applicant has not served the Notice of Appeal. The applicant was granted 60 days to remove his belongings on the land and to vacate the premises and lastly, the respondent states that the applicant has been in the habit of obtaining profit of the soil by making bricks.
I have considered the application, replying affidavit and rival submission and do find that the application has been filed without undue delay as it was filed within the 60 days granted by the court. However, I do not find evidence of substantial loss by the applicant if stay of execution is not granted. If anything, there is evidence of wastage of the property by the applicant cutting trees and burning bricks. The applicant has not demonstrated that he has high chances of success since it is claimed that the property belonged to his mother and yet it has not been demonstrated that he has capacity to sue on behalf of his late mother. The defendant is not claiming adverse possession but an inheritance from his mother who had some interest in the property and yet he is not the Administrator of the estate of his deceased mother. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Eldoret this 20th day of April, 2018.
A. OMBWAYO
JUDGE