[2011] KEHC 982 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the grant of stay of execution/proceedings. The delay in filing the application was not inordinate, and the appeal was not frivolous as it raised the issue of jurisdiction, which is fundamental. The court held that unless stay was granted, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 982 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kibirech A. Sitienei; Respondent: Geofrey Lelgo Saina
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 161 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Stay Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution/proceedings granted pending appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Succession Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Court, Irreparable Loss, Security for Due Performance
- 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
Kibirech A. Sitienei
Appellant
Geofrey Lelgo Saina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for stay of execution or proceedings pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the succession cause.
- 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the grant of stay of execution/proceedings. The delay in filing the application was not inordinate, and the appeal was not frivolous as it raised the issue of jurisdiction, which is fundamental. The court held that unless stay was granted, the appeal could be rendered nugatory, and the applicant could suffer irreparable loss. The subject land was deemed adequate security for the due performance of any decree. The court also found that the respondent would not suffer prejudice if stay was granted. Accordingly, the court ordered a stay of execution/proceedings in the lower court pending the hearing and determination of...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution/proceedings granted pending appeal.
Orders
- Stay of execution/proceedings of the ruling in Kapsabet Succession Cause No. 102 of 2006 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
- Costs shall be in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
(Coram : F. Azangalala, J.)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2010
BETWEEN
KIBIRECH A. SITIENEI..............................................APPELLANT
AND
GEOFREY LELGO SAINA........................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the decision of the Principal Magistrate Hon. J. M. Njoroge, dated 24th August, 2010
in Kapsabet Principal Magistrate’s Court Succession Cause No. 102 of 2006)
RULING
The applicant, Kibirech A. Sitienei, seeks by his Notice of Motion dated 16th December, 2010, stay of execution/proceedings in Kapsabet Succession Cause No. 102 of 2006 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. The application is expressed to be brought under the provisions of section 47 and 50 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules made thereunder.
The main reason for the application is that unless the same is granted this appeal will be rendered nugatory and the applicant stands to suffer irreparable loss. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. He has deponed, inter alia, that his counsel challenged the jurisdiction of the Lower Court but was overulled thereby precipitating this appeal and that unless stay is granted the respondent will execute the lower court’s judgment which event shall render his appeal nugatory. In the premises the applicant contends that he will suffer irreparable loss and damage.
The application is opposed on the basis of a replying affidavit sworn by the respondent. It is deponed in the said affidavit, inter alia, that the lower court indeed had jurisdiction to entertain the cause which was infact filed by the appellant himself. It is also deponed that the applicant’s appeal has no chance of success and that this application is without merit and should be dismissed.
When the application came up before me for hearing on 24th May, 2011 counsel agreed to file written submissions which were duly in place by 25th October, 2011. The submissions reiterated the parties’ stand-points taken in their respective affidavits.
I have considered the application, the affidavits filed by both parties and the submissions of counsel. Having done so, I take the following view of this matter. The guiding principles while considering an application for stay are whether there is sufficient cause to order stay; whether there has been delay; whether the applicant stands to suffer irreparable injury unless stay is granted and whether the respondent stands to suffer prejudice if the order is made.
With regard to delay, I note that the decision appealed from was delivered on 24th August, 2011. This application was then lodged on 16th December, 2010 subsequent to the appeal filed on 26th August, 2010. The delay involved is of nearly three (3) months. I consider that delay long but it is not inordinate. The applicant contends that the Lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter.In the premises, it cannot be said that the appeal is frivolous. In my view, the appeal is arguable and unless stay is ordered the appeal, even if it may eventually succeed, may very well be rendered nugatory. There is therefore sufficient cause for making the order. The dispute in the lower court appears to have been on the distribution of a deceased’s person’s estate. I do not see how a stay will prejudice the respondent.
With regard to security, there is the subject land in which the applicant has a substantial interest. In my view it is an adequate security for the due performance of any decree which may have to be settled ultimately in the event the appeal is lost.
In the premises, the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause and is entitled to the order sought. There will therefore be a stay of execution/proceedings of the ruling in Kapsabet Succession CauseNo. 102 of 2006 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
Costs shall be in the appeal.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORETTHIS 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of:
Mr. Okara for the Applicant.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
6TH DECEMBER, 2011.