[2020] KECA 109 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had demonstrated arguable grounds in the intended appeal, specifically regarding the cancellation of his title and the finding of one title being superior to another without proof of fraud. The Court further held that the applicant, being in possession and having...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KECA 109 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Muraya Gachuhi; Respondent: James Mukuria Njoroge (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the late Njoroge Thiaru); Respondent: Joteth Limited; Respondent: Commissioner of Lands
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 164 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Injunction and Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Stay of execution and injunction granted pending appeal.
- Judges
- GG Okwengu, GK Oenga, S ole Kantai
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Land Title Disputes, Ownership 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
Joseph Muraya Gachuhi
Applicant
James Mukuria Njoroge (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the late Njoroge Thiaru)
Respondent
Joteth Limited
Respondent
Commissioner of Lands
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Injunction and Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal warranting a stay of execution and injunction pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to preservation of the status quo regarding possession of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had demonstrated arguable grounds in the intended appeal, specifically regarding the cancellation of his title and the finding of one title being superior to another without proof of fraud. The Court further held that the applicant, being in possession and having developed the land, would suffer irreparable harm if evicted before the appeal is heard, thus rendering the appeal nugatory. The Court concluded that the status quo should be preserved by granting a stay of execution and an injunction restraining eviction pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Stay of execution and injunction granted pending appeal.
Orders
- An order of injunction restraining the 1st respondent, his servants or agents from evicting the applicant from Land Parcel No. 13330/592 pending appeal.
- An order of stay of execution of the Judgment and Orders issued by the Environment and Land Court in ELC No. 462 of 2012 on 5th May, 2020, including cancellation of the applicant’s title, pending appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: OKWENGU, KIAGE & KANTAI, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 164 OF 2020
BETWEEN
JOSEPH MURAYA GACHUHI..........................................................APPLICANT
AND
JAMES MUKURIA NJOROGE (Suing as the Administrator
of the Estate of the lateNJOROGE THIARU).........................1ST RESPONDENT
JOTETH LIMITED..................................................................2NDRESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER OF LANDS...............................................3RDRESPONDENT
(Being an application for an injunction and stay of execution against the Judgment of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nairobi (K. Bor, J.) dated 5thMay, 2020
in
ELC No. 462 of 2012)
****************
RULING OF THE COURT
In a Judgment delivered by the Environment and Land Court (“ELC”) at Nairobi (K. Bor, J.) on 5th May, 2020 the court found in favour of the Plaintiff (James Mukuria Njoroge – suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the late Njoroge Thiaru– the 1st respondent here) in a dispute revolving around ownership of a parcel of land L.R. No. 13330/592.
In the Motion before us brought under Rules 1 (2), 5(2) (b), 42 and 47 of the Rules of this Court we are asked in the main:
“2. THAT pending the hearing and determination of this application the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction thereby restraining the 1strespondent either by himself, his servant and or his agent from evicting the applicant from the suit property Land Parcel No. 13330/592 and also issue an order of a stay of execution of the Judgment and Orders issued by the High Court ELC Division (By Hon. Lady Justice K. Bor) delivered at Nairobi in ELC No. 462 of 2012 on 5thday of May, 2020 thereby ordering the cancellation of the applicant’s title Land Parcel No. 13330/592.
3. THAT pending the hearing and determination of the intended Appeal the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of injunction thereby restraining the 1strespondent either by himself, his servant and or his agent from evicting the applicant from the suit property Land Parcel No. 13330/592 and also issue an order of a stay of execution of the Judgment and Orders issued by the High Court ELC Division (By Hon. Lady Justice K. Bor) delivered in Nairobi in ELC No. 462 of 2012on 5thMay, 2020 thereby ordering the cancellation of the applicant’s title Land Parcel No.13330/592. ”
In grounds in support of the application and in a supporting affidavit of the applicant (Joseph Muraya Gachuhi) it is said that the applicant is the registered owner of the said parcel of land which he says he purchased from the 2nd respondent (Joreth Limited) for consideration; that the 1st respondent had filed a suit alleging to have bought the same land from Thome Farmers No. 5 Limited; that the Judge in the ELC case had ordered that the applicant’s title be cancelled and an order of injunction was issued against the applicant and the 2nd respondent restraining them from dealing with the land; the applicant had lodged a Notice of Appeal; that the applicant was apprehensive that the 1st respondent would evict him from the land where he was in possession.
In a replying affidavit by Robertson Nderitu Mwihu, the Operations Manager of the 2nd respondent, it is deposed that the 1st respondent had filed the said suit which he lost and appealed; that prior to the institution of the said suit the applicant here was in possession of the suit property having purchased it from the 2nd respondent; that he believed that the applicant had an arguable appeal as the sale of the property to the applicant had not been disowned by the 2nd respondent. In sum he supported the application.
There was no other replying affidavit.
We have perused the record of Motion, the submissions filed by the applicant and draft Memorandum of Appeal.
The principles that apply in applications of this nature are well settled. For an applicant to succeed in such an application he must, firstly, demonstrate that the appeal, or intended appeal, as the case may be, is arguable, which is the same as saying that it is not frivolous. The applicant must, in addition, demonstrate that absent stay the appeal would be rendered nugatory – See the case of Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & Others [2013] eKLR where those principles are summarized.
Some of the grounds taken in the draft Memorandum of Appeal are to the effect that the trial Judge erred in law and fact in allowing the plaintiff’s claim and thereby ordered cancellation of a title whereas, according to the applicant, there was no ground to do so as the plaintiff did not prove fraud on the part of the 1st defendant. It is also intended to be argued that the trial Judge erred in law and fact in finding one title to be superior to another title. We note that an arguable point on appeal is not one that must succeed and on that basis we find these to be arguable grounds in the intended appeal.
On the nugatory aspect it is stated that the applicant is in possession of the land where he has put up some developments including a perimeter wall. It is better in those circumstances that the status obtaining when the suit was filed be preserved pending hearing and determination of the appeal. The Motion succeeds and is allowed. Costs of the Motion will be in the appeal.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 4thday of December, 2020.
HANNAH OKWENGU
........................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.O. KIAGE
......................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. ole KANTAI
....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRR