[2007] KEHC 2410 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants are the registered owners and in occupation of the disputed land, and that this fact was not disputed by the respondents. The court accepted the applicants' explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, noting that they were unaware of the judgment delivery date. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2410 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Monica Chelel Malel; Applicant: Hezron Kosgey; Respondent: John Keah Cherwon; Respondent: Uasin Gishu Land Dispute Tribunal
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 48A of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Intended Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
- Judges
- K Bauni
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Land Ownership Disputes, Judicial Review, 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
Monica Chelel Malel
Applicant
Hezron Kosgey
Applicant
John Keah Cherwon
Respondent
Uasin Gishu Land Dispute Tribunal
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Intended Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending the intended appeal against the judgment and tribunal award.
- 2 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable loss if the stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the absence of notice of judgment delivery justifies the delay in filing the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants are the registered owners and in occupation of the disputed land, and that this fact was not disputed by the respondents. The court accepted the applicants' explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, noting that they were unaware of the judgment delivery date. The court held that subdividing and transferring the land before the appeal is heard would be costly and could result in irreparable loss to the applicants if the appeal succeeds. The court determined that maintaining the status quo by granting a stay of execution was appropriate to prevent prejudice to the applicants and to allow the intended appeal to be filed and determined. The court...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
Orders
- There be a stay of execution of this court's judgment delivered on 12th March 2007 and the Tribunal award as adopted by the Resident Magistrate.
- The stay shall be in effect for 90 days from today's date, after which there shall be a mention to confirm whether an appeal has been filed. If an appeal is filed, the court may extend the stay orders.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Civil Appeal 48A of 2003
REPUBLIC:…………………….….........................................………..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
JOHN KEAH CHERWON:……......................................………..1ST DEFENDANT
UASIN GICH LAND DISPUTE TRIBUNAL:..........................….2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The applicants MONICA CHELEL MALEL and HEZRON KOSGEY had a dispute before UASIN GISHU DISTRICT LANDS DISPUTE TRIBUNAL with the respondent JOHN KEAH CHETWON over ownership of land parcel No. Turbo Settlement scheme/258. The dispute was referred to the Tribunal by the respondent. The said land is allegedly registered in the names of the applicants. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent and ordered the applicants to transfer 3 acres of the land to her. The applicant filed an application for judicial Review. His said application was dismissed on 12th March 2007. He now has applied for a stay of that judgement, and in extension stay of the Tribunals award until an intended appeal is heard and determined.
Applicant’s counsel deponed and it was submitted that the said judgement was delivered in absence of her client and herself. They had no notice that the judgement was to be delivered on that day. By the time they released that judgement was delivered time for filing a Notice of Appeal in court of Appeal had elapsed. However they have nevertheless filed a Notice of Appeal though late. The applicant is desirous to appeal against the judgement but the respondent has moved the subordinate court in Eldoret CM.CC.NO.66 OF 2002 to have the suit land sub-divided. If this was done applicant will suffer irreparable loss.
Application was opposed. It was deponed and submitted that there is no valid appeal in court of appeal pending as of now. Further that the applicant is the one using the land currently and if the land is subdivided and an appeal is filed and is successful then the respondent can be ordered to re-transfer the land back to the applicant. There will be no loss.
I have carefully considered the application. I am not in a position to tell weather the appeal, if any will be filed will be an arguable appeal with chances of success. It is only the court of appeal which can say that when it will be properly seized of the matter. However applicant has said that he is currently the registered owner of the suit land and lives there. That fact has not been disputed. I feel that it would be proper for status quo to be maintained until the intended appeal is filed. The applicant has explained why they have not yet appealed. They were not aware of date of delivery of judgement. To have the land subdivided and transferred would be costly. It would also mean that the applicant has to move out of the three acres to give way to respondent. If appeal is filed and succeeds that would be irreparable loss if the land will be returned to him. The respondent at no time has never been in occupation of the suit land. I believe he can wait a little longer until the issues are fully determined in the higher court.
The upshot of the above is that I allow the application but in the following terms:-
1) There be a stay of execution of this courts judgement delivered on 12th March 2007 and consequently the Tribunal award as adopted by the Resident Magistrate.
2) The stay be in effect for 90 days from today’s date after which there be a mention to confirm weather appeal has been filed or not. If appeal filed the court to extend the stay orders.
3) Applicant to deposit in an interest earning account in the joint names of the two counsels Shs.65,000/= the sum assessed as costs within 45 days.
4) Costs of the application in the cause.
Dated and Delivered at Eldoret on 6th July,2007.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/C - David
Nandwa for the applicant
N/A for Respondent