[2017] KEELC 3124 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of a stay of proceedings. The pending application for revocation of grant in Succession Cause No. 2349 of 2013 could potentially affect the registration of the suit land and the outcome of the current proceedings. If the stay was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3124 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Sally Chepnge’tich Micheni; Defendant: Loyford Muchiri Micheni
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 55 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Succession Disputes, Fraudulent Grant, Registration of Land, Revocation of Grant
- 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
Sally Chepnge’tich Micheni
Plaintiff
Loyford Muchiri Micheni
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending determination of the application for revocation of grant in Succession Cause No. 2349 of 2013.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the registration of the land in the respondent's name was in accordance with the confirmed grant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of a stay of proceedings. The pending application for revocation of grant in Succession Cause No. 2349 of 2013 could potentially affect the registration of the suit land and the outcome of the current proceedings. If the stay was not granted, the revocation application could be rendered nugatory, and the applicant could suffer substantial loss. The respondent did not oppose the application. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the revocation application in the succession cause.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- There shall be a stay of proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the applicant’s application for revocation of grant in Succession Cause No. 2349 of 2013.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 55 OF 2017 B
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 201 OF 2016
SALLY CHEPNGE’TICH MICHENI…………………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LOYFORD MUCHIRI MICHENI………………………….….DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 15th March, 2017 and seeks orders:
1. THAT there be stay of proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the applicant’s application for revocation of grant in the Succession Cause No.2349 of 2013.
2. THAT cost of this application be provided for.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of LOYFORD MWITI MICHENI sworn on 15th March, 2016 and has the following grounds:
1. THAT this suit land is registered in the name of the applicant pursuant to Nairobi Succession Cause NO.2349 of 2013.
2. THAT the grant in succession cause no. 2349 of 2013 was fraudulently obtained and without involving the applicant.
3. THAT the applicant herein has filed an application for revocation of the grant.
4. THAT the registration of the land parcel in the name of the respondent was not according to the confirmed grant in Nairobi Succession Cause No.2349 of 2013.
5. THAT if the said stay of proceedings is not granted, the Applicant’s application in Succession Cause No.2349 of 2013 will be rendered nugatory and especially if the grant is revoked.
6. THAT substantial loss will result to the Applicant unless the orders sought are granted.
3. When the matter came up for directions on 6. 4.2017, there was an indication that the application was not opposed.
4. In the circumstances, the application is allowed in terms of prayer 1.
5. Costs shall be in the cause.
6. It is so ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 6th day of April, 2017 in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Njeru Ithiga for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Momanyi for the Defendant/Applicant
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE