[2009] KEHC 3260 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's appeal had overwhelming chances of success because adverse possession can only be claimed against a registered owner and must be initiated by originating summons, not by counter-claim. Given these legal errors in the original judgment, the court held that the land should not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3260 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Isaac Njuki Nyaga; Defendant: Festus Njue Nyaga; Defendant: Jemimah Wangechi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 84 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Adverse Possession, Appeals, Transfer of Land
- 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
Isaac Njuki Nyaga
Plaintiff
Festus Njue Nyaga
Defendant
Jemimah Wangechi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether adverse possession can be claimed by way of counter-claim instead of originating summons.
- 3 Whether adverse possession can run against a registered owner.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's appeal had overwhelming chances of success because adverse possession can only be claimed against a registered owner and must be initiated by originating summons, not by counter-claim. Given these legal errors in the original judgment, the court held that the land should not be transferred until the appeal is heard and determined. The court therefore granted a stay of execution to preserve the subject matter of the appeal and maintain the status quo, with no requirement for deposit of security due to the circumstances of the case.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed.
Orders
- Stay of execution granted; land parcel NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/1540 not to be transferred until the appeal is heard and determined.
- Status quo as at the time of judgment to be maintained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
Civil Case 84 of 2001
ISAAC NJUKI NYAGA……………………………....……………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FESTUS NJUE NYAGA………….....……………………1ST DEFENDANT
JEMIMAH WANGECHI…….…….......…………………..2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff/Applicant filed the plaint dated 10/8/2001 seeking inter alia eviction orders against the two defendants. The 2 defendants then filed a defence and counter-claim dated 27/9/2001 in which counterclaim they claimed Title to land Parcel No. NGARIAMA/NGIRIAMBU/1540 by way of adverse possession. The matter was heard by Hon Justice Khaminwa who found in favour of the defendants and dismissed the plaint. She ordered the plaintiff to transfer the land in question to the defendants within 30 days of the Judgment.
Being aggrieved by that ruling, the Plaintiff filed the application for stay dated 6/11/2007. That application is the subject of this ruling. He seeks an order for a stay of execution to avoid his appeal being rendered nugatory. The same is supported by his affidavit dated 6/11/2007 and opposed by the 1st defendant vide his replying affidavit dated 25/1/2008.
I have considered the said application, the grounds on which it is premised, the rival affidavits and the law applicable. With tremendous respect to Justice Khaminwa, this is one case which I can say has overwhelming chances of success. In that case therefore, the land in question should not be transferred until the appeal, which the applicant has already filed before the Court of Appeal is heard and determined. I say the appeal is good because of 2 points- Firstly, because adverse possession can only run against a registered owner and secondly, that adverse possession cannot be claimed by way of counter-claim but only by way of originating summons. There is vast case law in support of these two points. It is nonetheless not my place to go into them in detail . This being the case, I will allow the application in question and make no orders for deposit of security given the circumstances of the case. The land in question should not therefore be interfered with and the status quo obtaining as at the time the Judgment was delivered should be maintained.
Costs of this application to abide by the outcome of the appeal.
W. KARANJA
JUDGE
Delivered, signed and dated at Embu this 30th day of June 2009
In presence of:-Mr. Kariithi, Plaintiff and 1st defendant in open court.