[2024] KEELC 5711 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had no legal or proprietary interest in the suit property, Nakuru/Municipality/Block 22/505, as it belonged to a third party, George Mwadime Ntonge, who was not a party to the proceedings. The applicants failed to demonstrate any substantial loss they would suffer if stay was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 5711 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Margaret Kwamboka Thiong’O; Appellant: Naomi Wamaitha Kagia; Respondent: Samuel Ng’Ang’A
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E012 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Interest in Land, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Margaret Kwamboka Thiong’O
Appellant
Naomi Wamaitha Kagia
Appellant
Samuel Ng’Ang’A
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the lower court's orders pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the applicants have legal standing to seek stay regarding property not owned by them.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had no legal or proprietary interest in the suit property, Nakuru/Municipality/Block 22/505, as it belonged to a third party, George Mwadime Ntonge, who was not a party to the proceedings. The applicants failed to demonstrate any substantial loss they would suffer if stay was not granted, as they had no interest in the property. The court held that the applicants could not lodge a complaint or seek relief on behalf of a non-party. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Thiong’o & another v Ng’ang’a (Environment and Land Appeal E012 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5711 (KLR) (26 July 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 5711 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Environment and Land Appeal E012 of 2024
A Ombwayo, J
July 26, 2024
Between
Margaret Kwamboka Thiong’O
1st Appellant
Naomi Wamaitha Kagia
2nd Appellant
and
Samuel Ng’Ang’A
Respondent
Ruling
1. Margaret Kwamboka Thiong’o, Naomi Wamaitha Kagia (hereinafter referred to applicants) have come to this court seeking an order that this court be pleased to stay execution of the order of this ruling of Hon. B. O. Ochieng C.M delivered on 21/2/2024 in Nakuru CM ELC No.343 of 2018 (Samuel Ng’ang’a) -vs- Margaret Kwamboka Thiong’o and Naomi Wamaitha Kagia pending to hearing of the appeal herein. That costs of the application be in the appeal.
2. The application is made on the grounds that the orders made by the B Ochieng C.M on 21/2/2024 have the residual effect of having the land No. Nakuru/Municipality/Block 22/505 which is a totally different parcel of land from the one pleaded thus Parcel Nakuru/Municipality/Block 22/177 transferred to the respondent yet Nakuru/Municipality/Block 22/505 does not belong to any of the parties herein and was never part of the pleadings and evidence. Further, the applicants state that the ruling violate Articles 40 and 50 of the Constitution because the owner of parcel No. Nakuru/Municipality/Block 22/505 will be deprived of their property unheard. The applicants contend that they will suffer substantial loss if the orders are not granted because someone shall be condemned unheard.
3. The respondent has filed a reply to the application and states that the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the required legal threshold that they stand to suffer any substantial loss unless the orders sought herein are made. In any event, the Appellants/Applicants purport to lodge an appeal on behalf of a person whose existence is only known to them.
4. The respondent contends that the fact that the execution has been done or commenced does not in itself show that the Appellants/Applicants stand to suffer substantial loss.
5. Lastly, that the Appellants/Applicants have not provided any security for the due performance of orders of the trial court.
6. I have considered the application, supporting affidavit and the replying affidavit and do find that suit property Nakuru/Municipality/Block 22/505 belongs to George Mwadime Ntonge who is not a party to this suit and therefore appellant applicant cannot lodge a complaint on behalf of the said owner of this property.
7. Though the applicants have filed the application without inordinate delay they have not demonstrated any interest in Nakuru/Municipality/Block 22/505 and therefore have not demonstrated any substantial loss if stay is not granted as they have no interest in the property. Having failed to demonstrate substantial loss or any loss at all, I do dismiss the application with costs.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY ON THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2024. A.O.OMBWAYOJUDGE