[2019] KEELC 253 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction pending appeal, particularly as the defendant did not contest the application and the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The court held that the intended appeal could be rendered nugatory if the injunction...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 253 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ravji Karsani Sanghani; Defendant: Peter Gakunu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 365 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for injunction pending appeal allowed with conditions.
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Interlocutory Injunction, Stay of Execution, Security for Costs
- 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
Ravji Karsani Sanghani
Plaintiff
Peter Gakunu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of L.R No. 209/11091 pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether conditions should be imposed for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction pending appeal, particularly as the defendant did not contest the application and the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The court held that the intended appeal could be rendered nugatory if the injunction was not granted, but balanced this by imposing a condition that the plaintiff deposit Kshs. 2,000,000 as security within thirty days, failing which the stay would lapse automatically. The court thus allowed the application on these terms, recognizing both the right of appeal and the need to secure the defendant's interests.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for injunction pending appeal allowed with conditions.
Orders
- Plaintiff to deposit Kshs. 2,000,000 in court as security within thirty (30) days; in default, the stay shall stand discharged without further reference to the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
ELC SUIT NO. 365 OF 2014
RAVJI KARSANI SANGHANI............................................................PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
PETER GAKUNU...............................................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
What is before me is the plaintiff’s application brought by way of Notice of Motion dated 25th September, 2019 in which the plaintiff has sought an order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of all that parcel of land known as L.R No. 209/11091 pending the hearing and determination of an appeal he intends to file against the judgment made by this court on 17th May, 2019. The application was served upon the defendant’s advocates on 4th October, 2019 and an affidavit of service filed in court on 5th December, 2019. When the application came up for hearing on 9th December, 2019, the defendant’s advocates did not attend court. Ms. Mokaya advocate who appeared for the plaintiff/applicant relied entirely on the affidavit in support of the application and urged the court to allow the same as prayed.
I have considered the plaintiff’s application together with the supporting affidavit. By this court’s judgment delivered on 17th May, 2019 which is the subject of the intended appeal, the plaintiff’s claim over the suit property by adverse possession was dismissed with costs. It was not disputed at the trial that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and had developed the same. Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit, the defendant is now at liberty to take possession of the suit property. The defendant may also sell, transfer or charge the same.
The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court and intends to exercise his right of appeal. He has filed a notice of appeal and has also requested for the certified copies of the proceedings to enable him lodge the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The averments contained in the plaintiff’s affidavit in support of the application to the effect that his intended appeal may be rendered nugatory if the injunction sought is not granted have not been controverted by the defendant who did not defend the application.
I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s application has merit. However, since the orders sought are in the nature of a stay of execution pending appeal, the court will impose conditions for grant of the same. In conclusion, the Notice of Motion application dated 25th September, 2019 is allowed in terms of prayer 2 thereof on condition that the plaintiff shall deposit in court as security a sum of Kshs. 2,000,000/= within thirty (30) days fromthe date hereof in default of which the stay shall stand discharged withoutany further reference to the court.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 11th Day of December 2019
S. OKONG’O
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of:
Mr. Muganda holding brief for Mr. Solonka for the plaintiff
N/A for the Defendants
Ms. C. Nyokabi - Court Assistant