[2020] KEHC 8311 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had satisfied the requirements for a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Given the risk that subdivision and transfer of the estate's land could render any appellate decision nugatory and cause substantial loss, the court determined that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8311 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mike Lelmet & 3 Others; Respondent: Julia Kimoi Chebiator & 2 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Separation Cause 137 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Succession Estate Management, Appeals Process
- 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
Mike Lelmet & 3 Others
Applicant
Julia Kimoi Chebiator & 2 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the estate's capital assets should be preserved pending the outcome of the appeal.
- 3 Whether maintaining the status quo would prejudice any party.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had satisfied the requirements for a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Given the risk that subdivision and transfer of the estate's land could render any appellate decision nugatory and cause substantial loss, the court determined that maintaining the status quo was necessary. The existence of a prior consent order on land usage further supported the conclusion that no party would be prejudiced by a stay. Accordingly, the court allowed the application for stay of execution pending appeal and maintained the consent order until the appeal's determination.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- There shall be a stay of execution of the judgment of this court dated 10th December, 2018 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
- The consent order dated 26th February, 2014 is maintained pending the outcome of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.137 OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE WILLIAM CHERUIYOT LELMET - (DECEASED)
MIKE LELMET & 3 OTHERS............................ADMINISTRATORS/APPLICANTS
VERSES
JULIA KIMOI CHEBIATOR & 2 OTHERS..............OBJECTORS/RESPONDENTS
RULING
1. By their Notice of Motion dated 30th November 2019, the Applicants have prayed for orders of stay of execution of this court’s ruling dated 23rd July, 2019 and by extension the judgment dated 10th December, 2018 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application is supported by the sworn affidavit of Mike Lelmet dated the same date.
2. Basically the Applicants are dissatisfied with the decree of this court pursuant to the judgment dated 10th December 2018. The ruling dated 23rd July, 2019 was praying for the review of the said judgment of the court but it was declined.
3. The application was opposed by the Respondents vide the replying affidavit of Julia Kimoi Chebiator dated 16th December, 2019. She states that the Applicants have benefited from the estate and thus the application is meant to further delay the enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment.
4. Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules clearly spells out that for such an application to succeed the applicant must demonstrate that it stands to suffer substantial loss incapable of being compensated and that the application has been made without undue delay. If necessary, the court may order the provision of security for costs.
5. Looking at the history of this matter which is pitting the beneficiaries of the deceased, whether directly or not, there is need for the estate especially the capital assets to be secured pending the outcome of the Court of Appeals decision. Should the land be subdivided and the titles be issued and should the higher court tamper with the findings of this court, it shall then be very costly to reverse the steps which may have been taken including the retransfer of the titles to the estate.
6. It is also instructive to note that the parties through the consent on record dated 26th February, 2014 and prior to the full hearing and determination of the suit had agreed on the general usage of the parcels of land. There is therefore no harm should the parties continue with the said status quo pending the outcome of the appeal.
7. In the premises, the application is allowed, namely that there be stay of execution of the judgment of this court dated 10th December, 2018 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
8. The consent order dated 26th February, 2014 is hereby maintained pending the outcome of the appeal
9. Costs in the cause.
Dated signed and delivered in open court this 10th day of February, 2020.
...............................
H. K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
10/12/2020