[2020] KEELC 1430 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 1430 (KLR)

The court found that the Notice of Appeal was filed nearly 60 days after the judgment, contrary to the mandatory 14-day period stipulated by Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. No application for extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal had been made or granted. As a result, the Notice of Appeal was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 1430 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sparkle Properties Limited; Defendant: Johana Ngai & 6 Others; Defendant: Bata Shoe Company Limited; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 265 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Notice of Appeal Timelines, Trespass to Land, Vacant Possession, Damages for Trespass
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Notice of Appeal Timelines Trespass to Land Vacant Possession Damages for Trespass

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sparkle Properties Limited

Plaintiff

Johana Ngai & 6 Others

Defendant

Bata Shoe Company Limited

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay pending appeal can be granted in the absence of a competent Notice of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the Notice of Appeal filed out of time can anchor an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution pending appeal when no valid appeal exists.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Notice of Appeal was filed nearly 60 days after the judgment, contrary to the mandatory 14-day period stipulated by Rule 75(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010. No application for extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal had been made or granted. As a result, the Notice of Appeal was incompetent and could not anchor an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Without a competent Notice of Appeal, there was no valid intention to appeal, and thus no legal basis for granting a stay of execution pending appeal. The application for stay was therefore dismissed, and the plaintiff was at liberty to execute the judgment.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay pending appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The plaintiff is at liberty to execute the judgment.