[2007] KEHC 1033 (KLR)
The court found that the arbitration process and the adoption of the award were defective as they breached the rules of natural justice by failing to hear persons whose property rights were affected. The applicants, as registered owners, were entitled to be heard before any decision affecting their land was made....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1033 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Wariuwa Gachanja; Applicant: Sammy Gachanja Wariuwa; Applicant: Gideon George Wamae Wariuwa; Applicant: Patric Kamau Wariuwa; Respondent: Leah Kasyoka Mwilu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 54 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed, conditional on deposit of security.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Natural Justice, Arbitration Awards, Registered Land, Right to Be Heard
- 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
James Wariuwa Gachanja
Applicant
Sammy Gachanja Wariuwa
Applicant
Gideon George Wamae Wariuwa
Applicant
Patric Kamau Wariuwa
Applicant
Leah Kasyoka Mwilu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the arbitration award pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the arbitration process and adoption of the award breached the rules of natural justice.
- 3 Whether substantial loss would be suffered by the applicants if the stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the arbitration process and the adoption of the award were defective as they breached the rules of natural justice by failing to hear persons whose property rights were affected. The applicants, as registered owners, were entitled to be heard before any decision affecting their land was made. The court further held that the loss of land rights without a hearing constitutes substantial loss under Order XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The requirements for granting a stay of execution were satisfied, provided the applicants deposit KES 25,000 as security within 21 days. Failure to do so would result in the lapse of the stay.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed, conditional on deposit of security.
Orders
- Stay of execution of decree in Wanguru Arbitration No. 16 of 2005 granted pending appeal, subject to applicants depositing KES 25,000 within 21 days.
- If the deposit is not made within 21 days, the stay shall lapse.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
Civil Case 54 of 2006
JAMES WARIUWA GACHANJA
SAMMY GACHANJA WARIUWA
GIDEON GEORGE WAMAE WARIUWA
PATRIC KAMAU WARIUWA..……….....…APPLICANTS/APPELLANTS
VERSUS
LEAH KASYOKA MWILU…………....………..……………RESPONDENT
RULING
By Notice of Motion dated 3rd August 2006 the applicant seeks order for the stay of Execution of decree in Wanguru Arbitration No. 16 of 2005 pending hearing and determination of the appeal filed herein.
The applicant is one of the registered owners of a registered parcel of land. The decision is said to affect people who were not parties to the suit and therefore it is contrary to the rules of natural justice and has good chances of success and the same will be rendered nugatory unless the orders are granted.
The application is opposed. Grounds of opposition are filed relating the fact that the applicants are not party to the suit and have no right of appeal and they have no locus to institute the purported appeal and therefore the Appeal lacks merit is frivolous and an abuse of court processes .
Upon considering arguments from both parties it is my finding that the whole process of arbitration by the tribunal and the adopting of the award was defective. Any tribunal and any ordinary court must refrain for making orders before the production of the abstract of title. And therefore they breached the basic law of natural justice. “Audi alteran Partem” hear the other side also” A person who is about to be divested of his property particularly land is a person interested in the proceedings and must be heard before the decision to take away his property is made.
In my view this appeal has good chances of success. However the rules of court have set out the requirements to be fulfilled before orders can be made under Order XLI rule 4 firstly the court must be satisfied that substantial loss will be suffered if the order is not granted .
In this case the loss of land rights already guaranteed under registered land Act Cap. 300 before one is given a chance to be heard, in my view is substantial loss.
Secondly, the court must be satisfied that the Applicant has given security. I order that the applicant shall pay shs.25,000/= as deposit within the next 21 days from today. Failure to do so the stay hereby granted shall lapsed. The application is allowed in the above terms
Orders accordingly.
Dated this 6th March, 2007
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
6/3/2007
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue - Clerk
Ms. Ndorongo for Applicant
Ruling read in open court.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE