[2021] KEELC 3374 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3374 (KLR)

The court found that the judgment in Kitale CMCC No. 438 of 2019, which is the subject of the appeal, dealt solely with the issue of burial and did not confer ownership rights over the suit land to the respondents. The existence of a separate pending suit on ownership was noted, and the court held that granting a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3374 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Edward Makokha Simiyu; Appellant: Margaret Naliaka; Appellant: Isaac Simiyu Wafula; Respondent: Isaac Macheso Mabonga; Respondent: Joshua Macheso Mabonga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 7 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Legal Topics
Burial Disputes, Stay of Execution, Ownership Disputes, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Burial Disputes Stay of Execution Ownership Disputes Interlocutory Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Makokha Simiyu

Appellant

Margaret Naliaka

Appellant

Isaac Simiyu Wafula

Appellant

Isaac Macheso Mabonga

Respondent

Joshua Macheso Mabonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution of the judgment in Kitale CMCC No. 438 of 2019 should be granted pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment appealed against conclusively determined ownership rights over the suit land.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the judgment in Kitale CMCC No. 438 of 2019, which is the subject of the appeal, dealt solely with the issue of burial and did not confer ownership rights over the suit land to the respondents. The existence of a separate pending suit on ownership was noted, and the court held that granting a stay of the judgment would leave the parties without direction regarding burial, which is not desirable. The application for stay was therefore premised on a misapprehension of the effect of the judgment, as it did not determine ownership rights. The court concluded that there was no sufficient ground to grant a stay of execution and dismissed the application with costs to the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application dated 26th March 2021 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.