[2023] KEELC 20256 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss as required for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant's argument that the decretal sum was not budgeted for in the financial year 2022/2023 does not constitute substantial loss. The court further held that execution of a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 20256 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Sammy Boit Arap Kogo; Respondent: Kenyan Urban Roads Authority; Respondent: National Lands Commission
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Petition 19 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Compulsory Acquisition, Monetary Decree, Substantial Loss, Public Budgeting
- 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
Sammy Boit Arap Kogo
Applicant
Kenyan Urban Roads Authority
Respondent
National Lands Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether payment of the decretal sum will render the appeal nugatory.
- 3 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss as required for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant's argument that the decretal sum was not budgeted for in the financial year 2022/2023 does not constitute substantial loss. The court further held that execution of a monetary decree does not ordinarily render an appeal nugatory, especially where the applicant has already benefited from the compulsory acquisition and constructed a road without compensating the respondent. The application for stay was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Kogo v Kenyan Urban Roads Authority & another (Environment & Land Petition 19 of 2020) [2023] KEELC 20256 (KLR) (28 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 20256 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Environment & Land Petition 19 of 2020
EO Obaga, J
September 28, 2023
In The Matter Of Alleged Contravention Of Fundamental Rights And Freedoms Under Article 40, 47, 60 & 66 Of The Constitution And In The Matter Of Enforcement Of Fundamental Rights And Freedoms Under Article 40(3) (b) (i)(ii) Of The Constitution Of Kenya And In The Matter Of Section 3,4&6 Of The Land Acquisition Act Cap 295 Laws Of Kenya
Between
Sammy Boit Arap Kogo
Petitioner
and
Kenyan Urban Roads Authority
1st Respondent
National Lands Commission
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. This is a ruling in respect of a notice of motion dated May 29, 2023 in which the 1st Respondent/Applicant seeks stay of execution pending hearing and determination of an appeal filed before the Court of Appeal. The Applicant contends that if the Petitioner/Respondent executes the decree, it will suffer substantial loss and that the subject matter of the appeal will dissipate thus rendering the appeal nugatory.
2. The Applicant further states that the amount which was given to the Respondent is colossal and was not budgeted for in the financial year 2022/2023. It is further argued that if this amount was to be paid, it will interfere with the other contractual obligations of the Applicant which will ultimately affect the other budgeted for obligation which is likely to affect the taxpayers.
3. The Applicants’ application is opposed based on a replying affidavit by the Respondent on June 13, 2023. The Respondent contends that the Applicant has not met the threshold for grant of stay pending appeal. The Respondent further states that the Applicant is not seeking to appeal because it has an arguable appeal but that the amount in the decree was not budgeted for in the financial year 2022/2023.
4. The Respondent states that if the court is minded to grant stay, then the stay should be conditional upon the Applicant paying 50% of the decretal and the other 50%be deposited in a joint interest earning account or in the alternative the entire decretal sum be deposited in an escrow account within 30 days.
5. I have considered the Applicants’ application as well as the opposition to the same by the Respondent. I have also considered the submissions by the parties. The only issue for determination is whether the Applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay pending appeal.
6. In the instant case, judgment was delivered on April 19, 2023. The court granted a 30 day stay of execution. This application was filed on May 29, 2023. In the circumstances, I find that there was no unreasonable delay in filing the application.
7. On whether the Applicant has demonstrated that it will suffer substantial loss, the Applicant is stating that the amount is colossal and that it was not budgeted for in the financial year 2022/2023. There is no demonstration that the applicant will suffer substantial loss. The mere fact that the money was not budgeted for is not a ground to show that the applicant will; suffer substantial loss.
8. The Applicant is claiming that if the money is paid out, this will dissipate the substratum of the appeal thus rendering the appeal nugatory. The decree herein is a monetary one. It is very rare when execution in a monetary decree will render an appeal nugatory. The Applicant has already constructed a road through the Respondents property. He was not compensated for the acquired land. There is no way payment of the decretal sum will render the appeal nugatory. I find that the Applicants application is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at ELDORET on this 28th day of SEPTEMBER, 2023. E. O. OBAGAJUDGEIn the virtual absence of parties who were aware of the date of delivery of ruling.Court Assistant –LabanE. O. OBAGAJUDGE28th SEPTEMBER, 2023