[2020] KEELC 2627 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would result from the execution of the judgment, as the only order was the opening of an access road, which could be reversed if the appeal succeeded. The appellant did not provide evidence, such as photographs, to show that crops would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 2627 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Ndambuki Kioko; Respondent: Stanley Muia Makau
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 29 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Access Roads, Injunctions
- 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 Ndambuki Kioko
Appellant
Stanley Muia Makau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has demonstrated substantial loss that would warrant a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether security for due performance is necessary in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would result from the execution of the judgment, as the only order was the opening of an access road, which could be reversed if the appeal succeeded. The appellant did not provide evidence, such as photographs, to show that crops would be destroyed. The court held that the requirements for granting a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules were not met, particularly the demonstration of substantial loss. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 2nd July, 2019 for stay of execution is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MACHAKOS
ELC. APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2019
JOSEPH NDAMBUKI KIOKO..............................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
STANLEY MUIA MAKAU..................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an Appeal from the Judgment of Chief Magistrate’s Court at Machakos
in Civil Case No. 17 of 2018 delivered on 4th April, 2019
byHon. I.M. Kahuya, Principal Magistrate)
RULING
1. In the Notice of Motion dated 2nd July, 2019, the Appellant is seeking for the following orders:
a.That the Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order of stay of execution of the Judgment, any consequential orders and/or any subsequent proceedings arising from C.ELC 17/2018 pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal.
b.That costs of the Application be borne by the Respondent.
2. According to the Appellant, he is aggrieved by the decision of the trial court and has lodged an Appeal; that the Respondent has commenced execution of the Judgment and that he is likely to suffer substantial loss unless the Application is allowed.
3. In his Replying Affidavit, the Respondent deponed that the Appellant never defended the suit in the lower court; that the Appellant is in contempt of court process and that the Appellant has indicated he is willing to open the access road.
4. In his submissions, the Appellant’s advocate submitted that failure to grant an order of stay of execution will occasion the Appellant substantial loss; that the Appellant is old and is facing contempt proceedings and that unless an order of stay is granted, the Respondent will create an access road through the suit land and destroy food crops. The Respondent’s advocate did not file submissions.
5. The law governing Applications for stay of execution is Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows:
“(2) No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless-
(a) the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and
(b) such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.”
6. In considering if the Appellant will suffer substantial loss unless an order of stay of execution is granted, I am guided by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kenya Shell Limited vs. Benjamin Karuga Kigibu & Ruth Wairimu Karuga (1982-1988) 1 KAR 1018in which the court stated as follows:
“It is usually a good rule to see if Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules can be substantiated. If there is no evidence of substantial loss to the Applicant, it would be a rare case when an Appeal would be rendered nugatory by some other event. Substantial loss in its various forms is the cornerstone of both jurisdictions for granting stay.”
7. I have perused the Judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 4th April, 2019 and the Order (sic) of the same date. According to the extracted order, which is actually a Decree, the learned Magistrate directed as follows:
a.That the Government Surveyor to visit the land and re-opens the survey access road that passes through parcel number Kalama/Muumandu/2160 to 2079.
b.That the permanent injunction to issue restraining the Defendant by himself or his servant from interfering or blocking the access road on parcel number Kalama/Muumandu/2160 to 2079.
8. The Decree of the court only directed the opening up of an access road. Considering that this court, upon hearing the main Appeal, will either agree with the decision of the learned Magistrate, or not, the court, if the Appeal succeeds, will order for the closure of the opened access road.
9. Indeed, there is no substantial loss that will be occasioned with the opening up of an access road, which can still be closed by an order of this court. Furthermore, the Appellant did not annex any photographs to show that there are crops which will be destroyed during the opening up of the access road.
10. Having not shown the substantial loss that he will suffer if the order of stay is not granted, I dismiss the Application dated 2nd July, 2019 but with no order as to costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2020.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE