[2020] KEELC 854 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or vary the conditional stay order issued by the trial court on 30th January, 2020 because there was no substantive appeal filed against that specific order. The memorandum of appeal on record related only to the judgment of the trial court and not to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 854 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Emmanuel Lekakeny Kayo; Respondent: Olekimpaso Saitoti Peter Nkolopé
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 9 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay and Review
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Review of Orders, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court, Conditional Stay, Appeals Process
- 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
Emmanuel Lekakeny Kayo
Appellant
Olekimpaso Saitoti Peter Nkolopé
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay and Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to review or vary a conditional stay order issued by the trial court in the absence of a substantive appeal against that order.
- 2 Whether the application for stay of execution and review is competent where no appeal exists against the specific order being challenged.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review or vary the conditional stay order issued by the trial court on 30th January, 2020 because there was no substantive appeal filed against that specific order. The memorandum of appeal on record related only to the judgment of the trial court and not to the conditional stay order. In the absence of an appeal challenging the order, the trial court's decision was final on that issue, and the appellate court could not interfere. Consequently, the application for review and variation of the conditional stay order was found to be without merit and was struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs
Orders
- The application dated 17th May, 2020 is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAROK
ELC APEAL NO. 9 OF 2019
OLEKIMPASO SAITOTI PETER NKOLOPE...RESPONDENT
-VERSUS-
EMMANUEL LEKAKENY KAYO.........................APPELLANT
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated 17th May, 2020 the applicant had sought for the following orders: -
i. Spent
ii. That the applicant be granted leave to amend the notice of motion dated 10th March, 2020
iii. That there be stay or execution of decree issued in Kilgoris Principal Magistrate’s ELC No. 34 of 2019 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-parties.
iv. That there be stay of execution of Decree issued in Kilgoris Principal Magistrate’s ELC no. 34 of 2019 pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal.
v. That there be an order reviewing, varying and/or setting aside the order of trial court directing the appellant from depositing the sum of kshs. 300,000 as a condition of stay
vi. That the costs of this application be provided for.
The Application was based on the grounds that the appellant has an arguable appeal with probability of success and would be prejudicial if the appeal is heard and that the applicant is ready and willy to give such reasonable security as the court may deem fit to impose.
The application was further supported by the annexed affidavit of the appellant in which he averred that there is a pending appeal before court and that there is need to amend and apply for orders to vary, review and set aside the order of the trial court made on 30th January, 2020 as the appeal may be rendered nugatory if the application is not allowed.
The application was opposed by way of a replying affidavit in which the respondent contends that the application is incompetent and same be struck out. The respondent contends that in the instant application there is no appeal to the court by the appellant against the conditional stay that was granted by the trial court and thus the court has no jurisdiction to review the order of stay issued by the trial court on 30th January, 2020 as there is no appeal before the court on the same.
I have considered the application before me and the replying affidavit in support of the same. I have also considered the submissions filed by the parties herein. This is an application for stay of execution of a decree pending the hearing of the appeal. The trial court had an application by the appellant/applicant herein before the trial court sought for a stay of execution and the court had granted a conditional stay of execution on 30th January, 2020 in the terms that the appellant do deposit the sum of kshs. 300,000 within 45 days of the grant of the order. The appellant rather than comply with the order filed the instant application seeking for review and variation of the terms of the conditional stay. The respondent herein stated that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application as no appeal exists with regard to the orders issued by the court. I have looked at the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant and I find the same relates to the Judgment by the trial court and not against the orders issued on 30th January, 2020. There is no dispute by the parties that indeed there were the orders that the instant application.
However, in the absence of a substantive appeal against those orders I find that the trial court had conclusively dealt with the matter and this court can only interfere with the court’s finding if there is a specific appeal against the finding and in the absence of the appeal the instant application lacks merit and I thus strike out the same with costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court atNAROKon this 27th day of October, 2020
Mohammed N. Kullow
Judge
27/10/2020
In the presence of: -
CA:Chuma
Mr. Tanyasis for Mukoya for the appellant
N/A for the respondent