[2021] KECA 1038 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 1038 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated both limbs required for the grant of stay under Rule 5(2)(b): (1) the intended appeal was arguable, particularly on the point that the applicant was divested of his proprietary rights without being heard, and (2) the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 1038 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Nicholas Murage (As the Administrator of the Estate of Bernard Chiori Murage); Respondent: Softwhite Beach Limited; Respondent: Joseph Kashuru Mumbo; Respondent: Masumbuko Yerry Kombe; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: The Chief Land Registrar; Respondent: The District Land Registrar, Kilifi
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application E10 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Injunction and Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
J Karanja, GK Oenga
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Title Registration, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Stay of Execution Title Registration Right to Be Heard

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Nicholas Murage (As the Administrator of the Estate of Bernard Chiori Murage)

Applicant

Softwhite Beach Limited

Respondent

Joseph Kashuru Mumbo

Respondent

Masumbuko Yerry Kombe

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

The Chief Land Registrar

Respondent

The District Land Registrar, Kilifi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Application for Injunction and Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment and decree pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard before cancellation of the title to the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and whether it would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated both limbs required for the grant of stay under Rule 5(2)(b): (1) the intended appeal was arguable, particularly on the point that the applicant was divested of his proprietary rights without being heard, and (2) the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, as the property could change hands and recovery would be arduous. The absence of a response from the respondents further supported the applicant’s position. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and granted the orders sought for stay and injunction pending appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Prayers 4, 5 and 6 of the application are granted, staying execution of the judgment and decree and granting injunctive relief against the 1st to 3rd respondents pending appeal.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.