[2016] KEHC 5426 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate, through evidence, that there were coffee plants on the area where the access road was to be created. Mere allegations without supporting evidence, such as photographs or other proof, were insufficient to establish substantial loss. The court further held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5426 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Sarah Nasambu Musundi; Defendant: David Wafula Tela
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 11 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Access Road Disputes
- 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
Sarah Nasambu Musundi
Plaintiff
David Wafula Tela
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss that would result if stay of execution is not granted.
- 2 Whether the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether security for due performance is necessary in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate, through evidence, that there were coffee plants on the area where the access road was to be created. Mere allegations without supporting evidence, such as photographs or other proof, were insufficient to establish substantial loss. The court further held that if the access road is created and the applicant succeeds on appeal, the land would revert to him, and the appeal would not be rendered nugatory. As the applicant did not meet the threshold for substantial loss, the application for stay of execution lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 11 OF 2013
SARAH NASAMBU MUSUNDI …........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DAVID WAFULA TELA …...............................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 9/3/2015 in which he seeks stay of execution pending appeal. The Applicant contends that the Respondent has moved to implent the orders of the court and that if this is done it will cause him substantial loss as his coffee will be destroyed and that that is his only source of livelihood.
2. The application was duly served upon the Advocate of the Respondent who neither filed grounds of opposition nor replying affidavit. The application was therefore argued ex-parte.
3. This is an application for stay pending appeal. It is brought under the provisions of Order 42 Rule 6of theCivil Procedure Rules. Rule 6of order 42 provides that stay can only be granted if the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result if stay is not given. The application must also be brought without unreasonable delay. There has also to be such security for the due performance of the decree as may ultimately bind the Applicant.
4. In the instant case, the Judgement being appealed against was delivered on 19/1/2016. This application was filed on 9/3/2016. The application was therefore filed slightly over one month. I do not find the delay to be unreasonable in the circumstances.
5. An applicant must demonstrate that he will suffer substantial loss should stay not be granted. In the instant case, the Applicant contends that if the road of access is created, it will lead to destruction of his coffee plants which are his only source of livelihood. The applicant has merely said that his coffee will be uprooted in the process of creation of an access road. He has not demonstrated that there are coffee plants on the area where a road of access is supposed to be created. During the hearing, the Applicant had stated that he did not want an access road to be created because it will pass behind his house. He did not say that there were coffee trees behind his house. He should have at least annexed even a photograph to confirm that there are coffee trees. The court cannot take his word especially given his resolve to not only refuse to give the Respondent an access road but also kick her out of the land where she has lived for over 20 years.
6. Demonstration of substantial loss is the cornerstone for grant of stay of execution. Such demonstration has to be through evidence. An Applicant cannot just allege that he will suffer a particular loss without demonstration that that is the case. If the access road is created and the Applicant finally succeeds in his appeal, the appeal will not have been rendered nugatory as the position will revert i.e he will have his land back. As he has failed to demonstrate that there are any coffee tress which will be uprooted, I do not find any other thing which will render his appeal nugatory.
7. I do not have to consider security as this is normally considered if substantial loss is established. I therefore find that this application lacks merits. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 19 th day of April 2016.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of M/s Khaoya for Applicant and M/s Arunga for Respondent.
Court Assistant – Isabellah
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
19/4/16