[2020] KEELC 1002 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 1002 (KLR)

The court found that the orders sought by the appellants for stay of execution and stay of proceedings had been overtaken by events, as the orders in question were issued to enforce compliance with previous court directives limiting the appellants' use of the land to 5 acres. The appellants had not sought variation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 1002 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Samuel Ngoboi Kirusua; Appellant: Nicholas Tajewuo Kirusua; Respondent: John Olokuyia Kapio
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 17 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution and Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MN Kullow
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Eviction Orders, Status Quo Orders, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Eviction Orders Status Quo Orders Interlocutory Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Ngoboi Kirusua

Appellant

Nicholas Tajewuo Kirusua

Appellant

John Olokuyia Kapio

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution and Proceedings Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are entitled to a stay of execution of the eviction order pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are entitled to a stay of proceedings in the lower court case pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the orders sought have been overtaken by events and are related to the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the orders sought by the appellants for stay of execution and stay of proceedings had been overtaken by events, as the orders in question were issued to enforce compliance with previous court directives limiting the appellants' use of the land to 5 acres. The appellants had not sought variation or review of those orders and had instead disobeyed them, leading to contempt proceedings. The court held that the application for stay lacked merit, was not directly related to the pending appeal, and that the circumstances did not justify the exercise of discretion in favour of the appellants. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 26/5/2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.