[2021] KECA 427 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 427 (KLR)

The Court held that although the applicant demonstrated an arguable appeal by raising issues regarding the right to property and the legality of the contract termination, he failed to show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the orders sought were not granted. The trial court's order was a negative order,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 427 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Reuben Kioko Mutyaene; Respondent: Endermann Property Limited; Respondent: KCB Bank Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 70 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
J Karanja, GG Okwengu, MA Warsame
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Injunctions, Sale of Land, Appeals, Right to Property
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Injunctions Sale of Land Appeals Right to Property

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reuben Kioko Mutyaene

Applicant

Endermann Property Limited

Respondent

KCB Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for grant of stay of execution and injunctive orders pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that although the applicant demonstrated an arguable appeal by raising issues regarding the right to property and the legality of the contract termination, he failed to show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the orders sought were not granted. The trial court's order was a negative order, merely requiring refund of the deposit less 10%, and did not expose the applicant to any risk of loss or irreversible harm. As such, the requirements for granting stay of execution or injunctive relief under Rule 5(2)(b) were not met. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution and injunctive relief is dismissed with costs.