[2021] KEELC 1214 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate claims of substantial loss or irreparable harm, as required under Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant case law. The appellant merely asserted that she and her family would suffer destitution if evicted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 1214 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Grace Karamana; Respondent: Fridah Mwari; Respondent: M’Ikiara M’Mbogori
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 65 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Succession and Land Rights
- 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
Grace Karamana
Appellant
Fridah Mwari
Respondent
M’Ikiara M’Mbogori
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the appeal and application are properly before the court in light of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate claims of substantial loss or irreparable harm, as required under Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant case law. The appellant merely asserted that she and her family would suffer destitution if evicted from the suit land, but did not demonstrate any imminent threat of execution or provide notices to that effect. The court also held that the appeal and application were competently before it, following the principles set out in Tobias M. Wafubwa v Ben Butali. However, in the absence of evidence supporting the risk of substantial loss or execution, the application for stay of...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 30/6/2021 for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2021
GRACE KARAMANA........................................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
FRIDAH MWARI ....................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
M’IKIARA M’MBOGORI....................................................2ND RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Judgment of Hon. Susan Ndegwa (S.P.M.) delivered on 18th May, 2021, in Githongo P.M.C’S ELC No. 18 of 2018)
RULING
1. By an application dated 30/6/2021 the appellant seeks stay of execution of the judgment delivered in Githongo PMC ELC No. 18 of 2018 on 17/5/2021 pending hearing and determination of this appeal.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the appellant on 30/6/2021 on the grounds that she lives on the suit land which is registered under her deceased husband Edward Kirimi; and that the application has been brought without delay.
3. The appellant submits she was vested with the suit land vide Meru High Court Succession Cause No. 298 of 2003which decree the lower court in her view overlooked. She believes her appeal has high chances of success.
4. The respondents have opposed the application through preliminary objections dated 21/6/2021 and 24/9/2021 on the basis that the appeal offends Order 9 Rule 9of theCivil Procedure Rules.
5. In Tobias M. Wafubwa –vs- Ben Butali [2017] eKLR the Court of Appeal held once a judgment is entered, an appeal, before an appellate court is not a continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. It is the court’s view a commencement of a new proceeding in a court operating under different rules in which a party has a right to choose new legal representation.
6. In my view and being bound by the above decision I find both the appeal and this application as competently before the court.
7. Turning to the request for stay of execution, a party seeking stay under Order 42 Rule 6 (1)of theCivil Procedure Rules has to demonstrate substantial loss; that there has been no inordinate delay in lodging the application and that he is willing to offer security for due performance of the decree.
8. In Godfrey Wainaina Kinaynjui & Another –vs- Joseph Kwikya Musaa [2020]eKLRit was held the applicant must not only make assertions but also offer empirical documentary evidence to support such contention. The court carries out a balancing exercise to ensure justice and fairness thrive within the corridors of power.
9. In the instant case other than the appellant saying she has lived on the suit land for decades and her family will suffer irreparable harm, will be rendered destitute or homeless, she has offered no documents to substantiate those claims.
10. Similarly, the appellant has not demonstrated if there is any threatened or impeding execution by way of notices to that effect. In the premises I find the application lacking merit. The same is dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
IN PRESENCE OF:
MRS. OTIENO FOR 1ST RESPONDENT
ONYARI HOLDING BRIEF FOR MWONGELA FOR APPELLANT
COURT CLERK: KANANU
HON. C.K. NZILI
ELC JUDGE