[2024] KEELC 785 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 785 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was brought without unreasonable delay, as the judgment was delivered on 28.9.2023, a 30-day oral stay was granted, and the present application was filed on 24.10.2023. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate what substantial loss he would suffer if...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 785 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bradley Kipchirchir Barsolay; Defendant: Peter Kibiego Tiony
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E007 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Decree, Appeals, Land Occupation, Eviction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Security for Decree Appeals Land Occupation Eviction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradley Kipchirchir Barsolay

Plaintiff

Peter Kibiego Tiony

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was brought without unreasonable delay, as the judgment was delivered on 28.9.2023, a 30-day oral stay was granted, and the present application was filed on 24.10.2023. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate what substantial loss he would suffer if stay was denied. The respondent and his family have been in occupation of the 13 acres since 1997, and if the appeal succeeds, the title would simply revert to the applicant. There was no evidence that the respondent would dispose of the land if it was transferred. As demonstration of substantial loss is essential for the grant of stay, and none was shown, the application was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.