[2017] KEELC 2224 (KLR)
The court held that the paramount consideration in applications for stay of punishment pending appeal is the risk to personal liberty. The applicant acted promptly in filing the notice of appeal and the application for stay. Although the memorandum of appeal was not availed, the court found that the grounds and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2224 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Roseline Awino Oduor; Respondent: Stephen Omondi Oduor
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 216 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Punishment Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of punishment pending appeal allowed. Costs to be in the cause.
- Judges
- A Kaniaru
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Personal Liberty
- 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
Roseline Awino Oduor
Applicant
Stephen Omondi Oduor
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Punishment Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of punishment for contempt of court pending the determination of her intended appeal.
- 2 Whether the absence of a memorandum of appeal is fatal to the application for stay.
- 3 Whether the applicant will suffer prejudice if the stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the paramount consideration in applications for stay of punishment pending appeal is the risk to personal liberty. The applicant acted promptly in filing the notice of appeal and the application for stay. Although the memorandum of appeal was not availed, the court found that the grounds and nature of the intended appeal were sufficiently outlined in the affidavits and submissions. The court reasoned that denying the stay could result in irreparable prejudice to the applicant if she were punished and subsequently succeeded on appeal. The court therefore exercised its discretion to grant the stay, emphasizing the need for flexibility and fairness where personal freedom...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of punishment pending appeal allowed. Costs to be in the cause.
Orders
- Stay of punishment against the applicant for contempt of court pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
- Costs of the application to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA IN BUSIA
LAND & ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
ELC NO. 216 OF 2014
ROSELINE AWINO ODUOR ……...…………………..………APPLICANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN OMONDI ODUOR ……………………………….. RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The application under consideration is a Notice of Motion dated 21/11/2016 filed here on the same date. It is brought under order 40 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Rules and Section 31 of Civil Procedure Act. The Applicant - ROSELINE AWINO ODUOR - filed it against the Respondent - STEPHEN OMONDI ODUOR - seeking, in the main, to stay punishment arising from a finding of contempt of Court by her, which this Court made vide its ruling delivered on 10/11/2016.
2. The application has three prayers - prayers (a), (b) and (c) - but only prayers (b) and (c) are for consideration now. The said prayers are as follows:
Prayer (b): That this honourable Court be pleased to stay meting out punishment against contempnor pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
Prayer (c): Costs of this application be in the cause.
3. The grounds advanced in support state, interalia, that the intended appeal has high chances of success; that the Respondent will suffer no prejudice if the application is allowed; and that the Applicant will stand prejudiced if the punishment is meted out and the appeal is allowed. The supporting affidavit accompanying the application amplifies the grounds advanced.
4. The Respondent responded vide a replying affidavit filed on 19/1/2017. According to the Respondent the allegation that the intended appeal has high chances of success is mere speculation as the memorandum of appeal has not been availed. It was further deponed that the allegation that the appeal has high chances of success amounts to an attempt to argue such appeal before this court.
5. The Applicant filed a further affidavit in which she asserts that the actions found to constitute contempt on her part had been attributed earlier on to one MARGARET ANYANGO OCHWAGO.
6. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant’s submissions were filed on 24/4/2017. Basically, the Applicant repeats what she stated in her supporting and further affidavits namely: That the actions of contempt attributed to her were the same actions attributed to a different person earlier. And on the basis of these same actions proceedings had been instituted against the other person. The Applicant submitted that this would form the basis of her appeal.
7. The submissions of the Respondent were filed on 26/4/2017. The Applicant was said to be undeserving of the orders she is seeking because the Court found as a fact that she was in contempt. It was reiterated that no memorandum of appeal has been availed to Court. The Applicant is said to be playing around with the Court. She deserves to be punished, it was submitted. She is trying to confuse the Court and circumvent justice.
8. I have considered the application, the response made, and the rival submissions. I notice that the Applicant gave a notice of appeal dated 15/11/2016. The ruling of this Court relating to contempt was delivered on 10/11/2016. The notice came about five (5) days later. The Applicant is faulted for not, availing the memorandum of appeal. This application itself was filed on21/11/2016, which is less than two (2) weeks since the ruling was delivered. I think the Applicant acted reasonably fast. The memorandum of appeal needs to be well thought through and it is understandable if it had not been prepared by the time of filing the application.
9. It is also clear to the Court that what is at stake here is the Applicant’s personal freedom. She risks going to jail or paying a fine. The Court needs to approach the issue with understanding. It would amount to prejudice if the Applicant is for instance jailed only for her appeal to succeed after the sentence is served.
10. But the paramount consideration here is that somebody’s personal freedom is at stake. I would not perhaps mind much if what was at stake was sale or auction of some property. I think in a situation like this, courts ought to be flexible. The submissions of the Applicant have alluded to the nature of appeal. Common sense and considerations of fair play in the circumstances incline me to allow the application. It is clear to me that he appeal, if successful, will be rendered nugatory if punishment will have been meted out against the Applicant.
11. Lack of memorandum of appeal is a factor that weighs against the Applicant but when it is considered that the nature of the appeal is made clear in the submissions, and that what is at stake is someone’s personal freedom, that factor assumes a secondary place.
12. It is for all these reasons that I allow the application herein. Costs to be in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Busia this 19th day of July, 2017.
A. K. KANIARU
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
Applicant: …………………………………………………………………
Respondents: ……………………………………………………………