[2020] KECA 244 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant had raised arguable points in her intended appeal, specifically regarding the application of principles for granting a mandatory injunction, the lawful ownership of the suit property, and allegations of fraud. The Court also recognized the applicant's apprehension of eviction as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KECA 244 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Catherine Njeri; Respondent: Rose Wangari Ndung’u (Suing on their own behalf and for their own benefit and on behalf of and for the benefit of the Estate of the late Stanley Ndung’u Njoroge); Respondent: Steluc Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E237 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed.
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia, F Sichale
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Injunction, Stay of Execution, Ownership Dispute, Matrimonial Property, Trespass, Appealability
- 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
Catherine Njeri
Applicant
Rose Wangari Ndung’u (Suing on their own behalf and for their own benefit and on behalf of and for the benefit of the Estate of the late Stanley Ndung’u Njoroge)
Respondent
Steluc Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal warranting stay of execution.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the principles for granting a mandatory injunction were properly applied by the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant had raised arguable points in her intended appeal, specifically regarding the application of principles for granting a mandatory injunction, the lawful ownership of the suit property, and allegations of fraud. The Court also recognized the applicant's apprehension of eviction as justified given her occupation of the property. Balancing the risk of irreparable harm to the applicant against the respondents' interests, and noting that the respondents were restrained from disposing of the property, the Court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution of the orders of 16th July 2020 and further proceedings in the lower court, pending the hearing...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed.
Orders
- Pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, the orders of 16th July, 2020 and further proceedings in the court below are stayed.
- The applicant is directed to lodge and serve the record of appeal within 30 days of this ruling, failing which these orders shall stand vacated without further orders.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: OUKO, (P), ASIKE-MAKHANDIA & SICHALE, JJ.A)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. E237 OF 2020
BETWEEN
CATHERINE NJERI.........................................................................APPLICANT
AND
ROSE WANGARI NDUNG’U
(Suing on their own behalfand for their own benefit
and on behalf of and for the benefit of the Estate of the late Stanley
Ndung’u Njoroge).................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
STELUC LIMITED...........................................................2ND RESPONDENT
(An application for stay of execution pending appeal against the
decision of the High Court in Thika (Gacheru, J.) made on 16thJuly,
2020inThika ELC No. 180 of 2017FormallyNRB ELC No. 1282 of 2014)
RULING OF THE COURT
On 23rd May, 2017, the Environment and Land Court (Gacheru, J.) issued a temporary order of injunction against the applicant and restrained her from dealing with land parcel No. DAGORETI/RIRUTA/6213, the suit property, pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
A few months later on 26th October, 2017, the court further directed that the 2nd respondent was at liberty to use the suit property.
However, this could not be realized as the applicant had refused to vacate the suit property, also claiming its ownership, on the basis of which she continued to develop it, thereby denying the 2nd respondent of its use and possession.
As a consequence of these actions, and upon application by the 2nd respondent dated 21st March, 2019, the court below, by a mandatory injunction compelled the applicant to vacate the suit property within 45 days from the date of the ruling pending the hearing and determination of the suit; and that should the applicant fail to comply and voluntarily vacate, the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Muthangari Police Station, would supervise her eviction.
It is this order that the applicant intends to challenge before this Court. Pending the lodgement, hearing and determination of the intended appeal, she has taken out this application for injunction and stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) of this Court’s Rules, fearing the demolition of her home and eviction from the suit property, which she states is her matrimonial home, where she has lived with her family for over 30 years.
The combined effect of the respondents’ response to the application, in the replying affidavits and submissions is that, the 1st respondent as the lawful owner of the suit property, sold it to the 2nd respondent, a bona fide purchaser, for value; and that the applicant is a trespasser, hence, the intended appeal is not arguable. They have also insisted that the appeal will not be rendered nugatory as the court below also bound the respondents not to dispose of the suit property to third parties and that the applicant would have her day in court when the suit comes up for hearing before the trial court.
By the decisions cited by the parties, Regnoil Kenya Limited vs. Winfred Njeri Karanja[2019] eKLR andPauline Yebei & Another vs. Estate of Kiprotich Arap Letting represented by Andrew Kiprotich Kiprono[2017] eKLR, in a long line of cases decided by this Court, it is settled that the jurisdiction of the Court under rule 5(2) (b) is discretionary; and that the Court is guided by two principles, that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and that unless the orders sought are granted the appeal will be rendered nugatory.
We have considered the grounds proffered in the draft memorandum of appeal to show the arguability of the appeal. We respectfully think that issues such as the application of the principles for the grant of mandatory injunction, the lawful ownership of the suit property and the question of fraud are not idle.
Secondly, the applicant, being in occupation of the suit property, her apprehension of eviction before the determination of the appeal is not without justification.
Accordingly, we allow this application and order that, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, the orders of 16th July, 2020 and further proceedings in the court below are hereby stayed.
Within 30 days of this ruling, the applicant is directed to lodge and serve the record of appeal, failing which these orders shall stand vacated without any further orders.
Costs to be in the appeal.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 23rdday of October, 2020.
W. OUKO, (P)
........................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
ASIKE – MAKHANDIA
......................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
F. SICHALE
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR