[2021] KEELC 1814 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 1814 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the grant of stay of proceedings. The delay in bringing the application was plausibly explained, and the applicant had an arguable appeal concerning ownership of land. The court was satisfied that the applicant would suffer substantial loss if...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 1814 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Robert Okeri Ombeka; Respondent: Peter Ng’ang’a Chege
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 28 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Appeals From Subordinate Courts, Extension of Time, Ownership of Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Appeals From Subordinate Courts Extension of Time Ownership of Land

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Okeri Ombeka

Appellant

Peter Ng’ang’a Chege

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the conditions for grant of stay of proceedings pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application was sufficiently explained.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the grant of stay of proceedings. The delay in bringing the application was plausibly explained, and the applicant had an arguable appeal concerning ownership of land. The court was satisfied that the applicant would suffer substantial loss if the proceedings in the subordinate court continued without his participation. The application met the conditions set out under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and therefore, the court allowed the application for stay of proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • There be stay of proceedings in respect of CMCC 1267 of 2014, pending hearing and determination of this Appeal.
  • Costs of this application do abide the outcome of the Appeal.