[2020] KECA 747 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 747 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable appeal, particularly on the issue of whether the trial judge failed to consider the third sale agreement executed after the 1st respondent had obtained a certificate of confirmation of grant. The court was also persuaded that, unless stay was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 747 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Shahid Moughal; Respondent: Michael Mooke Kikaye; Respondent: The Land Registrar Kajiado; Respondent: The National Land Commission; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: Estate of Lekerra Ole Kikae; Respondent: Estate of Lekera Kikae Reipa
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 89 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
GK Oenga, F Sichale
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Sale of Land, Letters of Administration, Confirmation of Grant
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Sale of Land Letters of Administration Confirmation of Grant

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Shahid Moughal

Applicant

Michael Mooke Kikaye

Respondent

The Land Registrar Kajiado

Respondent

The National Land Commission

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Estate of Lekerra Ole Kikae

Respondent

Estate of Lekera Kikae Reipa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and not frivolous.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable appeal, particularly on the issue of whether the trial judge failed to consider the third sale agreement executed after the 1st respondent had obtained a certificate of confirmation of grant. The court was also persuaded that, unless stay was granted, further dealings with the property would risk putting it beyond the applicant's reach, thereby rendering the intended appeal nugatory. Consequently, the court allowed the application for stay of execution, ordering the Land Registrar not to effect any further transactions on the property or its subdivisions pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The 2nd respondent (Land Registrar Kajiado) is ordered not to effect any further transaction on Title Number Kajiado/Ildamat/3 or any resultant subdivisions pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the intended appeal.