[1996] KECA 11 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant, as the registered proprietor of the suit land, was not joined as a party in the High Court proceedings despite both the plaintiff and the defendant being aware of its interest. The applicant only became aware of the judgment after it was delivered and was denied an opportunity to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] KECA 11 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mwanzi Road Properties Limited; Respondent: Maina Muchiri; Respondent: Gilbert Road Properties Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 70 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- RO Kwach, AM Akiwumi
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Injunctions, Adverse Possession, Joinder of Parties
- 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
Mwanzi Road Properties Limited
Applicant
Maina Muchiri
Respondent
Gilbert Road Properties Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the High Court judgment pending appeal.
- 2 Whether an injunction should be granted restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit land.
- 3 Whether failure to join the applicant as a party in the High Court proceedings violated its right to be heard.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant, as the registered proprietor of the suit land, was not joined as a party in the High Court proceedings despite both the plaintiff and the defendant being aware of its interest. The applicant only became aware of the judgment after it was delivered and was denied an opportunity to be heard regarding its property rights. The Court held that this was a serious procedural irregularity that warranted intervention. The applicant demonstrated an arguable appeal, and the risk that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay or injunction was not granted justified the grant of injunctive relief. The Court therefore allowed the application and issued...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- An injunction is issued restraining the plaintiff, his servants and agents from selling, disposing of, transferring or otherwise dealing with the suit land pending the hearing and final determination of the intended appeal or further order.
- This order is to be registered against the title at the Lands Office.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & AKIWUMI, JJ.A.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI.70 OF 1996
BETWEEN
MWANZI ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED…..……………..APPLICANT
AND
MAINA MUCHIRI
GILBERT ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED……………..RESPONDENTS
(Application for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr. Justice Shields) dated 5th October 1993
in
CIVIL CASE NO. 1800 OF 1990 (0. S.))
************
RULING OF THE COURT
This is an application under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules brought by Mwanzi Road Properties Ltd (the applicant) for a stay of execution of the judgment and order of the superior court given by Shields J on 5th October, 1993. In the alternative, the applicant seeks an order of injunction against Maina Muchiri (the plaintiff) restraining him, his servants and agents from selling, disposing of, transferring or otherwise dealing with the property on Plot L.R. No. 1870/1/92 (the suit land) until the hearing and final determination of an intended appeal.
The plaintiff took out an originating summons against Gilbert Road Properties Ltd (the defendant) who was at the material time the registered proprietor of the suit land, claiming to be entitled to the suit land by adverse possession and sought to be registered as proprietor accordingly.
On 24th July, 1992, well before the date of trial, which took place on 5th October, 1993, the suit land was transferred to the applicant by the defendant by an assignment dated 23rd June, 1992. It must follow from this that at the trial on 15th March, 1993, the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that the applicant was the registered proprietor of the suit land. He took no steps to join the applicant as a second defendant in the suit. The applicant became aware of the judgment after it had been passed. It applied for a stay, and also to be joined as an interested party, but the application was dismissed by Bosire J on 18th October, 1994. The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of Shields J (Civil Appeal No.143/94) and also obtained a stay of execution from this
Court on 18th November, 1994. Unfortunately, that appeal was struck out by this Court on 15th February, 1996, as the record of appeal did not contain a certified copy of the order appealed against. The applicant has obtained extension of time to lodge a new appeal and has filed a fresh notice of appeal on the basis of which it has now made the present application.
Following the judgment of Shields J, a vesting order was prepared transferring the suit land to the plaintiff and was registered in the Lands Office on 25th July, 1994. In its ruling on the previous application for stay made by the applicant, this Court found as a fact that the order made by Shields J on 5th October, 1993, was not brought to the attention of the applicant until October 1994. The Court also expressed the view that the applicant should have been joined as a defendant because both the plaintiff and the defendant were aware of its interest in the suit land. And the Court granted a stay. That is a good enough reason for us to allow this application. The complaint by the applicant that its property was taken away without being given an opportunity to be heard is a very serious complaint indeed, and one which should be investigated because, if it is true, the order made in favour of the plaintiff may well be reversed.
We are satisfied that the applicant has an arguable appeal which, if successful, would be rendered nugatory if a stay or injunction is not granted. The plaintiff has been registered as proprietor already. So it would be pointless making an order staying his registration. In the circumstances, we allow this application and issue an injunction restraining the plaintiff, his servants and agents from selling, disposing of, transferring or otherwise, dealing with the suit land pending the hearing and final determination of the intended appeal or further order. We also order that this order be registered against the title at the Lands Office. Costs of the application to be in the intended appeal.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 10th day of April, 1996.
R. O. KWACH
…………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
R. S. C. OMOLO
…………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.M. AKIWUMI
………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a
true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR