[2018] KEHC 6589 (KLR)
The court found that although there was unexplained delay in bringing the application to set aside the stay order, the circumstances underpinning the original stay had fundamentally changed. The appeals on which the stay was premised had been heard and dismissed, removing the foundation for the continued operation...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 6589 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Gachanja Gituto; Respondent: Gideon Mwangi Chege
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 275 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside/review Stay Order
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- L Waithaka
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Review of Court Orders, Delay in Application, Appeal Dismissal
- 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
Joseph Gachanja Gituto
Applicant
Gideon Mwangi Chege
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside/review Stay Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds to set aside or review the stay order issued on 7th April, 2015.
- 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application is excusable.
- 3 Whether the changed circumstances, specifically the dismissal of the underlying appeals, justify setting aside the stay order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was unexplained delay in bringing the application to set aside the stay order, the circumstances underpinning the original stay had fundamentally changed. The appeals on which the stay was premised had been heard and dismissed, removing the foundation for the continued operation of the stay order. The respondent's subsequent appeal did not automatically entitle him to continued benefit of the previous stay, and he would need to seek a fresh stay order if so advised. The court concluded that it would be unjust to allow the respondent to continue enjoying the stay in the absence of a subsisting appeal or application for stay, and therefore set aside the...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The orders of stay issued on 7th May, 2015 together with all consequential orders are set aside.
- Costs are awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NYERI
ELC NO. 275 OF 2014
(Formerly NYERI HCC NO. 24 OF 2011 (OS)
JOSEPH GACHANJA GITUTO............APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
GIDEON MWANGI CHEGE...............RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The notice of motion dated 10th June 2016, brought under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeks to set aside and/or review the order made on 7th April, 2015 allowing the respondent’s application for stay of execution of the orders granted on 20th June, 2014 in favour of the applicant.
2. The application is premised on the grounds that while making its order for stay, the court held that the application for stay was not defended yet the applicant had filed grounds of opposition; that failure of the applicant’s advocate to attend court for hearing of the application for stay was not intentional (the advocate is said to have been unwell) and that the applicant got to know about the order of stay when he presented mutation forms to the Deputy Registrar of this Court in execution of the decree issued in his favour on 13th November, 2014.
3. The application is supported by the affidavits of the applicant’s advocate, Andrew Kariuki, sworn on 10th June, 2016 (supporting affidavit) and on 23rd October, 2017, further affidavit.
4. Vide the further affidavit filed on 31st October, 2017, it is deposed that the orders sought to be set aside have since lost basis as the suit/appeal on which the order of stay was premised has since been dismissed.
5. The application is opposed on the grounds that no satisfactory reason or reasons have been given for setting aside or reviewing the order of stay; that there has been in ordinate delay in bringing the application; that the respondent has appealed the decision made in ELC No. 13 of 2015; that allowing the application will render the appeal nugatory as the subject matter of the appeal would cease to exist and that the applicant will not suffer any prejudice if the orders sought are not granted as he is still in occupation of the suit property.
6. When the matter came up for hearing, the parties relied on the pleadings filed and the documents annexed to the affidavits sworn in support of the averments contained in the pleadings.
Analysis and determination
7. As pointed out above, the applicant seeks to set aside and or review the order of stay issued in favour of the respondent on 7th April, 2015 on the grounds set out herein above.
8. I have carefully read and considered the reasons given in support and opposition to the application.
9. Whilst I agree with the respondent that there was unexplained inordinate delay in bringing the application, I note that the appeals on which the application for stay was premised have since been heard and determined. The outcome of those appeals was not favourable to the respondent. In that regard, see the documents marked AK-2 and AK-3 in the affidavit sworn in support of the Application. Also see the document marked AK-2 in the further affidavit sworn in support of the application.
10. Concerning the respondent’s contention that he has filed an appeal against the decision made in Nyeri ELC No. 13 of 2015 and that granting the orders will render the appeal nugatory, it is noteworthy that the orders sought to be set aside were issued on the basis of the circumstances that existed at the time, to wit, there were pending appeals on which the application was hinged. Those circumstances have since changed in that the appeals on which the application for stay of execution was hinged have been dismissed.
11. Even though the respondent has preferred an appeal against the decision made in one of the appeals in respect of which the order of stay was issued, there being no application for stay for consideration by this court based on the changed circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the respondent cannot continue enjoying the orders of stay in the changed circumstances.
12. If the respondent wants an order of stay based on the appeal filed after his appeal to this court was dismissed, he should move the court for appropriate orders.
13. The upshot of the foregoing is that the applicant has made up a case for setting aside the orders of stay issued on the 7th day of May, 2015 together with all the consequential orders which orders together with all the consequential orders.
14. Costs are awarded to the applicant.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court at Nyeri this 24th day of April, 2018.
L N WAITHAKA
JUDGE
Coram:
Ms. Wanjera h/b for Andrew Kariuki for the plaintiff
Joseph Gachanja – applicant
N/A for the defendant
Court assistant - Esther