[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 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 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and not frivolous.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: KIAGE, GATEMBU & SICHALE, JJ.A)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2020BETWEEN
MOHAMED SHAHID MOUGHAL...............................................APPLICANT
AND
MICHAEL MOOKE KIKAYE.............................................1STRESPONDENT
THE LAND REGISTRAR KAJIADO................................2NDRESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION..........................3RDRESPONDENT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.............................................4THRESPONDENT
ESTATE OF LEKERRA OLE KIKAE..............................5THRESPONDENT
ESTATE OF LEKERA KIKAE REIPA..............................6THRESPONDENT
(Being an application for stay of execution of the Judgment of the
Environment and Land Courtat Kajiado (C. Ochieng, J.)
delivered on 2ndMarch 2020
in
ELC Case No. 753 of 2017)
**********************
RULING OF THE COURT
1. The applicant, Mohammed Shahid Moughal, has applied bynotice of motion dated 19thMarch 2020 for orders of stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos in ELC Case No. 753 of 2017delivered on 10thMarch 2020 dismissing his suit and restraining him from interfering with “resultant subdivisions of land parcelnumber Kajiado/Ildamat/3” which the applicant claims to have purchased. The application is made under Rule (5)(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. He also seeks an order to restrain the Land Registrar, Kajiado, the 2ndrespondent, from effecting any transaction on the said property pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal from the said judgment. A notice of appeal was duly filed on 10thMarch 2020.
2. In his affidavit sworn on 19th March 2020 in support of the application, the applicant deposes that he entered into threeseparate agreements with the 1strespondent for the purchase of the property; that the learned Judge overlooked, or failed to consider one of those agreements in reaching the conclusionthat the 1strespondent did not have legal capacity to sell the property in the absence of letters of administration; that had the Judge considered that letters of administration were inplace when the third agreement of 30thOctober 2013 was executed, the Judge would have reached a different conclusion.
3. Directions were given, in view of the Corona virus epidemic, that oral arguments would be dispensed with and the application would be considered on the basis of the application itself, affidavits and written submissions. In that regard, the application was listed for our consideration in the Recess Cause of Thursday 16th April 2020 by which time no replyingaffidavit or submissions had been filed on behalf of the respondents.
4. We have considered the material before us including the memorandum of appeal annexed to the application and the applicant’s advocates written submissions and are satisfied that the intended appeal is not frivolous. There is for instance the contention that the Judge failed to consider that at the time the3rdagreement for sale was executed on 30thOctober 2013, the 1strespondent had already obtained a certificate of confirmation of grant. We think the intended appeal is arguable.
5. As to whether the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory unless the orders sought are granted, the applicant asserts that it has been in possession of the property since 2009; and that further dealings with the property before the intended appeal is heard and determined would put the property out of his reach should the appeal succeed. We are in the circumstances persuaded that the property should be preserved pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
6. We accordingly allow the application in terms of prayer 5thereof with the result that the 2ndrespondent is hereby ordered not to effect any further transaction on the property known as Title Number Kajiado/Ildamat /3 or on any resultant
subdivisions pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal. Costs of the application shall be in the intended appeal.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 24thday of April, 2020.
P.O. KIAGE
...................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. GATEMBU KAIRU, FCIArb
..................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
F. SICHALE
..................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is atrue copy of the original
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR