[2019] KEELC 3971 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3971 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate she would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, as she had already been evicted from the suit land in 2014 and did not provide evidence to the contrary. The judgment authorizing the eviction was not exhibited, and the ruling being appealed could...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3971 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Monicah Mwelu Gideon; Respondent: James Kivuva Ndetei (legal representative of the Estate of Kanuu Ndetei, deceased)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 56 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Eviction Orders, Appeals Process, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Eviction Orders Appeals Process Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance

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

Monicah Mwelu Gideon

Appellant

James Kivuva Ndetei (legal representative of the Estate of Kanuu Ndetei, deceased)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 7th August, 2018 pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant will suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay and if security for due performance has been provided.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate she would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, as she had already been evicted from the suit land in 2014 and did not provide evidence to the contrary. The judgment authorizing the eviction was not exhibited, and the ruling being appealed could not be stayed in isolation from the judgment. The application for stay was therefore dismissed as the appellant did not meet the legal threshold under Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 10th August, 2018 is dismissed with costs.