[2017] KECA 320 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable issue of fact or law arising from the trial court's findings, as required for a stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The only document filed was the trial judgment, with no supporting documentary evidence....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KECA 320 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Ahuyo Oluoch; Applicant: Fanuel Otieno Oluoch; Applicant: Vitalis Angucha Oluoch; Respondent: Siaya County Council (now Siaya County Government)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 12 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AM Githinji, GG Okwengu, A Mohammed
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Adverse Possession, Public Land, Limitation Periods
- 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
George Ahuyo Oluoch
Applicant
Fanuel Otieno Oluoch
Applicant
Vitalis Angucha Oluoch
Applicant
Siaya County Council (now Siaya County Government)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated an arguable appeal warranting a stay of execution.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient evidence to support the application for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable issue of fact or law arising from the trial court's findings, as required for a stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The only document filed was the trial judgment, with no supporting documentary evidence. Furthermore, the applicants did not show that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, as the respondent had been in possession since 1990, the applicants had already been evicted prior to judgment, and the only executable aspect was costs. The applicants' claim that the land would be subdivided and allocated was unsupported by concrete evidence....
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
- Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISUMU
(CORAM: GITHINJI, HANNAH OKWENGU &
J. MOHAMMED, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2017
BETWEEN
GEORGE AHUYO OLUOCH ……...…….… 1ST APPLICANT
FANUEL OTIENO OLUOCH ………………. 2NDAPPLICANT
VITALIS ANGUCHA OLUOCH …………….3RD APPLICANT
(Suing for and on behalf of the Estate of their father
Michael Oluoch Ahuyo – Deceaced)
AND
SIAYA COUNTY COUNCIL…………................RESPONDENT
(Now Siaya County Government)
(An Application for stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya, Environment and Land Court at Kisumu, (Kibunja, J.) dated 14th December, 2016
in
ELC CASE NO. 14 OF 2007)
*****************************
RULING OF THE COURT
[1] This is an application under Rule 5(2) (b) of the Court of Appeal Rulesfor stay of execution of the judgment of the Environment and Land Court (ELC), (Kibunja, J.) pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal.
[2] The applicants who appear in person are the joint administrators of the estate of Michael Oluoch Ahuyo, their father who died on 13th April, 1990. Their claim to land title No. Siaya/Kochieng B/1027 registered in the name of the respondent and which is being used as a public market was dismissed by the Environment and Land Court (ELC).
[3] The applicants’ case in the ELC was in essence that after the completion of the Land Adjudication process in mid 1980s, their deceased father Michael Oluoch Ahuyo was found to be the proprietor of land parcel No. Kochieng B/20. However, before Land Registration the land was unlawfully sub-divided into two parcels namely: Siaya Kochieng B/1027 and Siaya/Kochieng B/2018 and land title No. Siaya/Kochieng B/1027 registered in the name of Siaya County Council while title No Siaya/Kochieng B/1028 was registered in the name of their deceased father.
[4] The trial Judge after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence made findings inter alia, that land titles Nos. Siaya/Kochieng B/20, Siaya/Kochieng B/1027 and Siaya/Kochieng B/1028 were registered on the same day – 26th September, 1990 as first registration, that Siaya/ Kochieng B/1027 and Siaya/Kochieng B/1028 are not sub-divisions of Siaya/Kochieng B/20, that Siaya County Council has been in possession of said land Siaya/Kochieng B/1027 from 1990s, that applicants could not acquire title No. 1027 by adverse possession as it was public land and that the applicants’ claim was time barred as it was filed over 12 years from the date the respondent was registered as proprietor.
[5] The applicants’ intend to appeal against those findings on the grounds contained in the draft memorandum of appeal. The applicants admit that they were evicted from the said land on 21st April, 2016 long before the impugned judgment was delivered.
[6] Firstly, the applicants have not demonstrated that the intended appeal is arguable. The only document filed in support of the application is the judgment of the trial court. The documentary evidence relied on at the trial has not been availed. While we appreciate that the applicants are not represented by a counsel, the Court has to determine the application in accordance with the settled principles. We regret to say that the applicants have not shown any arguable issue of fact or law arising from the findings of the trial court.
[7] Secondly, the applicants have not shown that unless stay of execution is granted, the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory. The trial court made a finding of fact that Siaya County Council has been registered as proprietor of the suit land since 26th September, 1990, and has been using the land as a public market. Admittedly, the applicants were evicted from the suit land before the suit was determined. Thus, the judgment is not capable of execution save for recovery of costs. The applicants claim that unless execution of the judgment is granted the respondent will sub-divide the land and allocate plots to members of the public. However, there is no concrete evidence such as a development plan of the suit land to show that allocation of the suit land to members of the public is imminent.
[8] For the foregoing reasons, the application has no merit and is hereby dismissed. The costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
Dated and Delivered at Kisumu this 28th day of September, 2017.
E. M. GITHINJI
………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
HANNAH OKWENGU
…………………..….…
JUDGE OF APPEAL
J. MOHAMMED
……………..…………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy
of the original
DEPUTY REGISTRAR