[2019] KEELC 3262 (KLR)
The court held that once both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have conclusively determined the dispute regarding proprietorship of the suit land, there is no legal basis for granting a stay of execution of the eviction orders to allow for negotiations. Granting such a stay would amount to the court sitting on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3262 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Solomon Muathe Mitau & 787 Others; Defendant: Nguni Group Ranch
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 109 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Stay of Execution, Eviction Orders, Proprietorship 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
Solomon Muathe Mitau & 787 Others
Plaintiff
Nguni Group Ranch
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution of its order dated 18th January, 2018 to allow parties to negotiate an amicable settlement.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to stay its own orders and those of the Court of Appeal after final determination of the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that once both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have conclusively determined the dispute regarding proprietorship of the suit land, there is no legal basis for granting a stay of execution of the eviction orders to allow for negotiations. Granting such a stay would amount to the court sitting on its own appeal and on appeal of the Court of Appeal's judgment, which is not permissible. The applicants, having exhausted all legal remedies, have no further right to remain on the suit land, and the litigation must come to an end. The application for stay was therefore dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 4th July, 2018 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 109 OF 2001
SOLOMON MUATHE MITAU & 787 OTHERS.......PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
NGUNI GROUP RANCH..........................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Notice of Motion dated 4th July, 2018, the Plaintiffs/Applicants are seeking for the following orders:
a. That this Honourable Court be pleased to stay the execution of the court’s order dated 18th January, 2018 for a period of six (6) months to allow parties negotiate an amicable settlement of this dispute.
b. That this Honourable Court be pleased to make such orders as may appear to be fit and convenient to meet the ends of justice.
c. That the costs of this Application be in the cause.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Applicants claim for adverse possession was dismissed by the court; that the Respondents have been unable to enforce the orders of the court due to the high population of the people on the land and that the local community leaders are trying to find an amicable solution to resolve the dispute.
3. In reply, the Chairman of the Respondent deponed that the Applicants’ Application is hopeless and an abuse of the court process; that the Applicants did not respond to the Application for eviction; that no proposal has been made by the Applicants on settling the dispute herein and that the Respondent is entitled to the fruits of its Judgment.
4. Both the Applicants’ and the Respondent’s advocates filed submissions which I have considered.
5. The Applicants herein commenced this suit by way of an Originating Summons. In the said suit, the Applicants sought to be declared the proprietors of land known as Ikutha/Nguni/1 by way of adverse possession. After hearing the parties herein, the High Court dismissed the Applicants’ claim vide a Judgment dated 27th May, 2009.
6. After the dismissal of their suit, the Applicants lodged an Appeal, being Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2014. That Appeal was dismissed on 3rd March, 2017.
7. The Applicants now want this court to stay the enforcement of the orders of this court and the Court of Appeal “for a period of six (6) months to allow parties negotiate an amicable settlement of the dispute.”
8. The period of six (6) months that the Applicants had requested for from the time the Application was filed has since lapsed. Hopefully, they managed to negotiate and arrived at an amicable settlement of the dispute with the Respondent.
9. Even if the period requested for by the Applicants to negotiate the dispute with the Respondent had not lapsed, the prayer sought by the Applicants would not have been granted by the court. I say so because this court and the Court of Appeal having determined the dispute, an order of stay of its decision for eviction of the Applicants cannot issue.
10. Indeed, the order of stay of execution of the decision of the court pending “negotiations between parties”is not only provided for in the law, but would amount to this court sitting on its own Appeal and on Appeal of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal. Such a mandate is not available to this court.
11. The Court of Appeal having given the final decision on the issue of proprietorship of the suit land, the Applicants have no other remedy known in law allowing them to stay on the suit land. They have to give way and bring this litigation to an end.
12. For those reasons, the Application dated 4th July, 2018 is dismissed with costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2019.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE