[2007] KEHC 1903 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient reasons to warrant a stay of execution pending appeal. The concerns raised regarding the division of land and the fate of the plaintiff's house and crops could be addressed through further application to the court if parties failed to agree on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1903 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Samson Njuguna; Defendant: Ruth Waithria Nganga; Defendant: Hannah Wanjiku Muringa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3044 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the defendants
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Pending Appeal, Land Subdivision, Possession of Land
- 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
Samson Njuguna
Plaintiff
Ruth Waithria Nganga
Defendant
Hannah Wanjiku Muringa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the division of land as ordered by the court requires further clarification or intervention.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient reasons to warrant a stay of execution pending appeal. The concerns raised regarding the division of land and the fate of the plaintiff's house and crops could be addressed through further application to the court if parties failed to agree on subdivision. The plaintiff, having been in possession of land not adjudged to be his, is at liberty to remove or sell his crops. The application for stay was therefore dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the parties could seek the court's intervention on the mode of subdivision if necessary.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the defendants
Orders
- The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL CASE 3044 OF 1996
SAMSON NJUGUNA …………………………...…………. PLAINTFIF
VERSUS
RUTH WAITHRIA NGANGA ………………...……….. 1ST DEFENANT
HANNAH WANJIKU MURINGA …………………… 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
I: Procedure
1. This court heard and finalized the trial between the parties herein on 28 February 2007.
2. The plaintiff herein not being satisfied with the decision of this court accordingly appealed to the court of appeal. He now bring the application dated the 15 March 2007 seeking the stay of execution of this courts orders pending appeal.
II: Application for stay of Execution
3. The parties herein have had an on going dispute over land for over 40 years. I have finalized this suit and given each party their respective portion. The advocate for the plaintiff states that the court had not specified how the division would be. His house may be demolished in the process on one suit land. Further there are crops on the land that belong to him. How would this be accounted for?
4. The advocate for the defendant object to this application and says that the parties would take into consideration the plaintiffs’ house.
III: Should stay of execution be issued pending appeal?
5. I find that the reasons going to appeal given by the plaintiff did not suffice to seek a stay of execution. The plaintiff is free to come to this court to deal with the sub division on the land. I believe this may be done by parties. Failure to agreeing they are at liberty to apply and they would accordingly direct how the sub division ought to be done through experts.
6. I accordingly note further that the plaintiff had been in possession of land not his. He is free to up root his crops or sell the same to the occupiers now placed by this court.
7. This application is accordingly dismissed with costs to he defendants
Dated this 27th day of June 2007 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
N.G. Kimani for Kimani & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff
B Jonge for Baya & Co. Advocates for the defendant