[2020] KEELC 127 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution pending appeal was unopposed and based on a solid legal foundation. The court confirmed its jurisdiction to grant preservation orders under both the Environment and Land Court Act and the Civil Procedure Rules. Given the absence of any response from the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 127 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Evance Otieno Oloo Gor; Appellant: Micheal Kojo Otieno; Appellant: Walter Okelo Opiyo; Respondent: Fund Manager NGAFF Homa-Bay County; Respondent: Homa-Bay County Women Representative; Respondent: M/S Pacific General Works Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 34 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Interlocutory Orders, Preservation of Subject Matter
- 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
Evance Otieno Oloo Gor
Appellant
Micheal Kojo Otieno
Appellant
Walter Okelo Opiyo
Appellant
Fund Manager NGAFF Homa-Bay County
Respondent
Homa-Bay County Women Representative
Respondent
M/S Pacific General Works Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants are entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant preservation orders in the circumstances of this case.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution pending appeal was unopposed and based on a solid legal foundation. The court confirmed its jurisdiction to grant preservation orders under both the Environment and Land Court Act and the Civil Procedure Rules. Given the absence of any response from the respondents and the merits of the application, the court allowed the motion, granting a stay of execution of the ruling pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, subject to the appellants filing a complete record of appeal within forty-five days.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 26/8/2020 is granted pending appeal.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MIGORI
ELC APPEAL CASE NO. 34 OF 2020
EVANCE OTIENO OLOO GOR......................1ST APPELLANT/APPLICANT
MICHEAL KOJO OTIENO............................2ND APPELLANT/APPLICANT
WALTER OKELO OPIYO..............................3RD APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
FUND MANAGER NGAAF HOMA-BAY COUNTY.........1ST RESPONDENT
HOMA-BAY COUNTY WOMEN REPRESENTATIVE...2ND RESPONDENT
M/S PACIFIC GENERAL WORKS LTD............................3RD RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Ruling of Honourable A.T. Obutu (SPM) delivered on 26/8/2020 in the Chief Magistrate Court ELC Case No. 40 of 2020)
RULING
1. The instant ruling is in regard to a Notice of motion dated 15th September 2020 duly filed in court on 16th September 2020 and commenced under Section 1A, 1B,3A of Civil Procedure Act Cap 21, Order 40 Rule 7, Order 42 Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Rules 2010, (The motion herein). The three (3) appellants are seeking orders infra;-
a) Spent
b) Spent
c) THATHonourable court be pleased to issue an order of stay pending appeal against the ruling of Honourable A.T. Obutu (SPM) delivered on 26/8/2020 in the Chief Magistrate’s court ELC case No. 40 of 2020.
d) THAT cost of this application be provided for.
2. The motion is premised on the annexed affidavit of the 2nd appellant/applicant, Michael Kojo Otieno and grounds 1 to 7 set out on it’s face. There is also a draft memorandum of appeal dated 15/9/2020, annexed thereto.
3. It is the duty of this court to ensure that the respondents were made aware of the existence of this motion and to have them served with all the necessary papers or documents. The respondents have the right to appear or to decline to appear as observed by the Court of Appeal in Ogada =vs= Mollin (2009) KLR 620.
4. So, on 17th September 2020, the court ordered and directed that the applicants serve the respondents with the motion. Indeed, by an affidavit of service sworn on 14th December 2020 and filed in court on 15th December 2020, respondents were duly served.
5. The respondents failed to respond to the motion.
6. It is trite law that this court has authority to issue orders for the preservation, in the interim, of a subject matter of appeal; see the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kenya in Board of Governors Moi High School Kabarak and another =vs= Malcom Bell (2013) eKLR.
7. Moreover, under section 13 (7) (a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (2012), this court has the mandate to issue preservation orders in a matter. Order of stay sought herein is not precluded thereby.
8. I have duly considered the motion in it’s entity. It is hinged on a solid foundation, unchallenged and full of merits.
9. Accordingly, the notice of motion dated 15th September 2020 duly lodged in court on 16th September 2020 is hereby allowed on terms infra;-
a) Prayer 2 in respect of stay of ruling as sought therein as this appeal is admitted accordingly.
b) Costs be in the cause.
c) The appellants/applicants shall file and served a complete record of appeal within the next forty-five (45) days from this date in view of Article 159 (2) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 in default, order of stay granted herein shall lapse forthwith.
d) The Deputy Registrar of this court to call for the original record of the trial court urgently.
e) Mention to confirm compliance and for directions on 17th March 2021.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATEDandSIGNED at MIGORI this 15th day of December, 2020.
G.M.A. ONGONDO
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
1st ,2nd, and 3rd Appellants/Applicants
Non appearance for the respondents
Mr. Tom Maurice – Court Assistant