[2022] KEELC 691 (KLR)
The court dismissed the application for stay of proceedings on the basis that the Defendant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a stay. The court emphasized the statutory requirement for expeditious disposal of land cases under Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act, noting that entertaining...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 691 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Priscillah Kipito Karei Dagome; Plaintiff: Joseph Kento; Defendant: Sports Champion Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 8 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- JE Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Limitation of Actions, Fraud in Land Disputes, Expeditious Trial, Striking Out Pleadings
- 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
Priscillah Kipito Karei Dagome
Plaintiff
Joseph Kento
Plaintiff
Sports Champion Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proceedings in the Environment and Land Court should be stayed pending the outcome of Civil Appeal No. E279 of 2021 at the Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the Defendant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for stay of proceedings, including the existence of an arguable appeal.
- 3 Whether the principle of expeditious disposal of land cases under Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act should override the application for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court dismissed the application for stay of proceedings on the basis that the Defendant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a stay. The court emphasized the statutory requirement for expeditious disposal of land cases under Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act, noting that entertaining multiple interlocutory applications would defeat this purpose. The court further held that the Defendant would not be denied a fair hearing, as it would have the opportunity to present its defence and evidence at trial. Additionally, the court found that the Defendant's appeal was not sufficiently arguable to justify a stay, and that the attempt to strike out the suit on...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 8/6/2021 is dismissed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO
ELC CASE NO. 8 OF 2019
PRISCILLAH KIPITO KAREI DAGOME..................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
JOSEPH KENTO............................................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
(Suing as legal representatives of Karei Ole Dagome)
-VERSUS-
SPORTS CHAMPION LIMITED....................................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
This ruling is on the application dated 8/6/2021 which has one main prayer namely;
(2) The Honorable court be pleased to and hereby stay its proceedings pending the outcome of civil appeal no. E279 of 2021 at the Court of Appeal.
The grounds for seeking a stay of proceedings are that the Defendant has an arguable appeal that may be rendered nugatory to his prejudice.
The appeal by the Defendant is against the ruling dated 15/3/2021 where the Court dismissed the Defendant’s application dated 14/10/2020 which had sought to dismiss this suit on the ground that it was time barred.
This Court dismissed the Defendant’s Notice of Motion on the ground that Section 26of theLimitationof Actions Actapplies to this case which means that limitation does not apply as the case relates to fraud.
The Notice of Motion is opposed by the Plaintiff whose counsel has filed eight grounds of opposition which include that the stay is prejudicial to the Plaintiff and the Defendant still has another chance to appeal in the event that the Court finds in favour of the Plaintiff.
Counsel for the parties filed written submissions on 16th December, 2021 and 26th January, 2022 respectively.
I have carefully considered the application dated 8/6/2021 in its entirety including the affidavit, the grounds of opposition and the submissions by learned Counsel for the parties.
I find that the application has no merit and I dismiss it for the following reasons;
Firstly, Section 3of theEnvironmentand Land Court Actrequires that land cases be heard and determined expeditiously. This is the principal objective of the Act. It is a derogation of this principle to allow too many applications before hearing the parties on merit. Entertaining too many applications defeats this purpose.
Secondly, the Defendant has not been and will not be denied a fair hearing in this case. It will be afforded a chance to state its defence, file its evidence, call its witnesses and cross-examine the Plaintiffs’ witnesses. This one is assured.
Thirdly, what the applicant sought and it was rightfully denied by Ochieng Judge, was to decide a land case on a technicality without hearing the parties. Striking out of pleadings is a draconian move that should not be allowed except in the cleanest of cases. I am not satisfied that the Defendant has an arguable appeal.
For the above reasons, I dismiss the application dated 8/6/2021. Costs in the cause.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022.
M.N. GICHERU
JUDGE