[2011] KEHC 1304 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 1304 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had been in occupation of the suit property for over 40 years and stood to suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, as the respondents had commenced construction and possession following the judgment. The application was brought promptly, and the applicant expressed readiness to provide security. The court determined that the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant pending appeal, subject to the applicant depositing Kshs.100,000 as security within 30 days. The court also clarified procedural issues regarding the parties and the description of the suit property, finding them to be minor and...

Citation
[2011] KEHC 1304 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mwenja Ngure; Respondent: Sammy Kipkorir Seroney; Respondent: Commissioner of Lands; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Unicab Housing Cooperative Society Ltd; Respondent: John Mutua Mwangi; Respondent: Evans R. Thuku, Joseph Mugendi (As trustees of Beta Venture Enterprises); Respondent: Lucy Kinya Mungatia; Respondent: Samwel Nyamosi Bichang’a; Respondent: Charles Kyale Mwania; Respondent: Patrick Mbugua Kinyanjui; Respondent: Peter Okenyo Omanga; Respondent: David C. Koske; Respondent: Esther Wairimu Gathongo; Respondent: John Gaitungu Ndoro; Respondent: Gladys Moraa Mosomi; Respondent: Ruth Wangari Gitau; Respondent: Peninah Muthoni Njoroge; Respondent: Mary Cherono Matumbi; Respondent: Thomas Barongo Oeri; Respondent: Losmas Momanyi Gichana; Respondent: Rosemary Nyambura; Respondent: Gideon Gitau Gachigua; Respondent: Douglas Munyinge Munyae; Respondent: Loise Njeri Ngugi; Respondent: Andrew Cheruiyot Yegon; Respondent: Jacob M. Mbabu; Respondent: Benjamin Nganga Muiruri; Respondent: Douglas Sengera Nyamoko; Respondent: Josiah Dishoni Njeru; Respondent: Paul K.A. Cheruiyot; Respondent: Fredrick Mosomi Oyugi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 June 2011
Case Number
Civil Suit 155 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed, subject to deposit of security.
Judges
SP Ouko
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Costs, Possession of Land, Title to Land
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Security for Costs Possession of Land Title to Land

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mwenja Ngure

Applicant

Sammy Kipkorir Seroney

Respondent

Commissioner of Lands

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Unicab Housing Cooperative Society Ltd

Respondent

John Mutua Mwangi

Respondent

Evans R. Thuku, Joseph Mugendi (As trustees of Beta Venture Enterprises)

Respondent

Lucy Kinya Mungatia

Respondent

Samwel Nyamosi Bichang’a

Respondent

Charles Kyale Mwania

Respondent

Patrick Mbugua Kinyanjui

Respondent

Peter Okenyo Omanga

Respondent

David C. Koske

Respondent

Esther Wairimu Gathongo

Respondent

John Gaitungu Ndoro

Respondent

Gladys Moraa Mosomi

Respondent

Ruth Wangari Gitau

Respondent

Peninah Muthoni Njoroge

Respondent

Mary Cherono Matumbi

Respondent

Thomas Barongo Oeri

Respondent

Losmas Momanyi Gichana

Respondent

Rosemary Nyambura

Respondent

Gideon Gitau Gachigua

Respondent

Douglas Munyinge Munyae

Respondent

Loise Njeri Ngugi

Respondent

Andrew Cheruiyot Yegon

Respondent

Jacob M. Mbabu

Respondent

Benjamin Nganga Muiruri

Respondent

Douglas Sengera Nyamoko

Respondent

Josiah Dishoni Njeru

Respondent

Paul K.A. Cheruiyot

Respondent

Fredrick Mosomi Oyugi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had been in occupation of the suit property for over 40 years and stood to suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, as the respondents had commenced construction and possession following the judgment. The application was brought promptly, and the applicant expressed readiness to provide security. The court determined that the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant pending appeal, subject to the applicant depositing Kshs.100,000 as security within 30 days. The court also clarified procedural issues regarding the parties and the description of the suit property, finding them to be minor and...

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed, subject to deposit of security.

Orders

  • There will be an order of stay of execution of the judgment pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
  • The applicant shall deposit Kshs.100,000 into court within 30 days from the date of this order as security.