[2021] KECA 961 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) in the absence of a notice of appeal against the impugned decision. The only notice of appeal on record relates to a different ruling, not the order sought to be stayed. Even if jurisdiction existed, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECA 961 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paul Njeru Mwathe; Respondent: Vidya Thira Mwathe; Respondent: Catherine Muthoni; Respondent: Mary Warue John; Respondent: Alois Nyaga Mbogo
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 122 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RN Nambuye, S ole Kantai
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Injunctions, Adverse Possession, Trusts in Land
- 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
Paul Njeru Mwathe
Applicant
Vidya Thira Mwathe
Respondent
Catherine Muthoni
Respondent
Mary Warue John
Respondent
Alois Nyaga Mbogo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to entertain the application for stay of execution in the absence of a notice of appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the twin principles for grant of stay under Rule 5(2)(b): arguability of the appeal and whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the order lifting cautions, restrictions, and prohibitory orders on the suit land prejudices the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) in the absence of a notice of appeal against the impugned decision. The only notice of appeal on record relates to a different ruling, not the order sought to be stayed. Even if jurisdiction existed, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal is arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted, as the order merely removed impediments to the implementation of a prior order entitling the applicant to a portion of the suit land. Accordingly, the application lacks merit and is dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of execution and injunction is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NYERI
(CORAM: OUKO (P), NAMBUYE & KANTAI, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 122 OF 2019
BETWEEN
PAUL NJERU MWATHE...........................................................APPLICANT
AND
VIDYA THIRA MWATHE..............................................1ST RESPONDENT
CATHERINE MUTHONI...............................................2ND RESPONDENT
MARY WARUE JOHN....................................................3RD RESPONDENT
ALOIS NYAGA MBOGO................................................4TH RESPONDENT
(An application for stay of execution against the Ruling and Orders of the Environment and Land Court at Embu (Y. Angima, J.) delivered on 19thMarch, 2019
in
ELC Cause No. 239 of 2015)
***********************
RULING OF THE COURT
Subsequent to the Environment and Land Court declaring that the respondents held 2. 6 acres of land parcel No. KYENI/MUFU/7142 to 7148 in trust for the applicant, following a finding that the latter was in adverse possession, there have been numerous applications.
To begin with, the applicant was aggrieved and brought an application for review of the above order complaining that the portion awarded to him was “too small considering the nature of the case”. Not finding any substance in the claim, Olao, J. dismissed it with costs. Angima, J. subsequently dismissed the applicant’s notice of motion for an order of injunction to restrain the respondents from evicting the applicant from the suit land.
But what has prompted the taking out of this application is an order issued by Angima, J. on 19th March, 2019 by which the learned Judge directed that;
“all cautions, restrictions and/or prohibitory order lodged on“the suit land” be and are hereby lifted”.
The applicant moving under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court’s rules is seeking that we stay those orders and issue an order of injunction to restrain the respondents from evicting him. The application is based on the grounds that the respondents have obtained orders for the survey and subdivision of the suit land; and that this will be prejudicial to him as he stands to be evicted from the portion of the suit land that he occupies.
Applications under Rule 5(2) (b) are a daily affair in this Court and it is firmly established that in considering such an application, the court exercises unfettered judicial discretion; that the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application of this nature only and only after a notice of appeal has been filed under Rule 75. Halai & Another vs. Thornton & Turpin (1963) Ltd. (1990) KLR 365.
The applicant must simultaneously satisfy both limbs to the twin principles; first, whether the appeal is arguable; and, second, whether it will be rendered nugatory, if it were to succeed. We have looked at the record and noted that the respondents have not filed any response to the application. The position notwithstanding, it is our obligation to satisfy ourselves that the application meets the threshold of applicable principles before allowing it. None of the parties have filed submissions as directed in the hearing notice of 27th November, 2020.
On the merits of the application, the first consideration is the notice of appeal which gives the Court jurisdiction to hear the application. Again, our perusal of the record makes it clear that no notice of appeal has been filed in respect of the decision of Angima, J. rendered on 19th March, 2019. The notice we see on record is one against the ruling of Olao, J. of 20th March, 2018.
Obviously, without a notice of appeal, we must down tools. But before we do so, we also do not think the appeal contemplated by the applicants is arguable, or that it will be rendered nugatory, if successful, considering the nature of the order intended to be impugned which simply removed any impediments to the implementation of the order declaring the applicant to be entitled to a portion of the suit land.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the application which accordingly we dismiss with no orders as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 19thday of February, 2021.
W. OUKO, (P)
......................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
R.N. NAMBUYE
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. ole KANTAI
....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true
copy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR