[2022] KEELC 2269 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 2269 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant's appeal was not frivolous and that there were sufficient grounds to preserve the suit property pending the determination of the appeal. The court exercised its discretion under Order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules to grant a status quo order, restraining the respondent from dealing with the property for six months to allow the appellant to prosecute the appeal. The court emphasized that the preservation of the property was necessary to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory and to avoid prejudicing the parties' rights before the substantive issues are determined on appeal.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 2269 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Daniel Kanja Thuo; Respondent: Amos Njuguna Githinji
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 May 2022
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 97 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
Status quo order granted for six months; no order as to costs.
Judges
JG Kemei
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Sale of Land Disputes, Appeals From Subordinate Courts
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Status Quo Orders Sale of Land Disputes Appeals From Subordinate Courts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Kanja Thuo

Appellant

Amos Njuguna Githinji

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the preservation of the suit property is necessary to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's appeal was not frivolous and that there were sufficient grounds to preserve the suit property pending the determination of the appeal. The court exercised its discretion under Order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules to grant a status quo order, restraining the respondent from dealing with the property for six months to allow the appellant to prosecute the appeal. The court emphasized that the preservation of the property was necessary to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory and to avoid prejudicing the parties' rights before the substantive issues are determined on appeal.

Court Disposition

Status quo order granted for six months; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Status quo to be maintained in terms of prayer No c for a period of 6 months within which the appellant should have set the appeal down for hearing and determination.
  • No orders as to costs.