[2011] KEHC 2211 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had demonstrated that he would suffer substantial loss if stay of execution was not granted, as the subject land could be transferred, rendering the appeal nugatory. The application for stay was made without unreasonable delay, and the appellant expressed willingness to provide...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2211 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Rajab Makokha Sakwa; Respondent: Adams Kweyo Chekuni
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 61 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution granted, conditional on deposit of security.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Land Disputes Tribunal Awards, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance
- 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
Rajab Makokha Sakwa
Appellant
Adams Kweyo Chekuni
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has established grounds for stay of execution of the award pending appeal.
- 2 Whether substantial loss would result to the appellant if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had demonstrated that he would suffer substantial loss if stay of execution was not granted, as the subject land could be transferred, rendering the appeal nugatory. The application for stay was made without unreasonable delay, and the appellant expressed willingness to provide security. The court exercised its discretion to grant stay of execution or implementation of the decisions of the South Wanga Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee, conditional upon the appellant depositing KShs.50,000 in court within thirty days. Failure to deposit the security would result in automatic vacation of the stay order.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution granted, conditional on deposit of security.
Orders
- Stay of execution or implementation of the decisions of the South Wanga Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee granted pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
- Appellant to deposit KShs.50,000 in court within thirty (30) days; in default, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2011
RAJAB MAKOKHA SAKWA............................................................................................APPELLANT
V E R S U S
ADAMS KWEYO CHEKUNI...........................................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Before me is a notice of motion filed by the appellant pursuant to the provisions of Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders of this court to stay further proceedings, execution and implementation of the award made by the South Wanga Land Disputes Tribunal and affirmed by the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal filed in this court. The grounds in support of the application are stated on the face of the application. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of the appellant. The application is opposed. The respondent filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the application.
At the hearing of the application, this court heard oral rival submissions made by Mr. Nandwa for the appellant and by the respondent who was acting in person. This court has carefully considered the said arguments. It has also read the pleadings filed by the parties herein in support of their respective opposition positions. The issue for determination by this court is whether the appellant established a case to enable this court grant stay of the adoption of the award made by the South Wanga Land Disputes Tribunal pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules:
“No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless –
(a)The court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay;
(b)Such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.”
In Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1982]KLR 417 at page 419, Madan JA held as follows:
“It is in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse a stay but what has to be judged in every case is whether there are or not particular circumstances in the case to make an order staying execution. It has been said that the court as a general rule ought to exercise its best discretion in a way so as not to prevent the appeal, if successful from being nugatory, per Brett, LJ in Wilson v Church (NO.2) 12 Ch D (1879)454 at p 459. In the same case Cutton LJ said at p 458.
“ I will state my opinion that when a party is appealing, exercising his undoubted right of appeal, this court ought to see that the appeal, if successful, is not nugatory.” ”
In the present application, the appellant was aggrieved by the decision of the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee. The appellant wants to exercise his undoubted right of final appeal to this court. The subject of appeal is land. This court is of the considered opinion that having perused the proceedings before the South Wanga Land Disputes Tribunal and the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee, it is apparent that the appellant will suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted. This is because the subject of the appeal would have been transferred thus rendering the intended appeal nugatory. This court is not oblivious of the fact that land is an emotive issue in Kenya. This court therefore allows the appellant’s application for stay of execution or implementation of the decision of the South Wanga Land Disputes Tribunal and that of the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee pending the hearing and determination of the appeal before this court.
As regards security, the appellant shall deposit in court the sum of KShs.50,000/= within thirty (30) days of today’s date. In default of such deposit, the order granting stay herein shall stand automatically vacated. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
DATED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2011
L. KIMARU
J U D G E