Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Application No. NAI. 300 of 1998· [1999] KECA 108 (KLR)

SAMSON KIBERA TUARUCHIU vs MINISTER OF LANDS & SETTLEMENT & 4 OTHERS [1999] KECA 108 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
6 May 1999
JGJ.E. GicheruRKR.O. KwachASA.B. Shah
177 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal stopped High Court land proceedings in Meru pending appeal because the government respondents did not oppose the application.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory application to the Court of Appeal at Nairobi under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, brought by Samson Kibera Tuaruchiu in an intended appeal against a ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Etyang, J.) in H.C. Misc. No. 111 of 1997. The applicant sought an injunction and a stay of the orders and proceedings of the High Court pending the lodging and hearing of the intended appeal, against the Minister of Lands & Settlement, the Director of Lands Adjudication & Settlement, the District Land Adjudication Officer Meru, the District Commissioner Meru and Francis Mukungi. The matter was heard by a bench of Gicheru, Kwach and Shah, JJ.A., who delivered a single order of the court on 6th May 1999. Because counsel for the respondents did not oppose the Notice of Motion, the court granted it in terms of prayers 1 and 2, thereby staying the High Court orders and proceedings and restraining further action pending the intended appeal. Costs of the application were made costs in the intended appeal. The judgment contains no separate opinions, no dissent, no citation of authorities, and no extended reasoning; its significance lies only in the consent-based grant of interim relief. A minor internal inconsistency exists between the 1998 application number and the 1999 date attributed to the ruling under appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an injunction and stay of orders/proceedings should issue pending an intended appeal under Rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

The application was granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2, the respondents having conceded by not opposing it.

Reasoning

This was a short consent-type disposition. The court recorded that counsel for the respondents did not oppose the applicant's Notice of Motion and, on that basis, granted the application in terms of prayers 1 and 2, which sought an injunction and stay of the orders and proceedings of the High Court at Meru pending the intended appeal. No contested analysis of the usual Rule 5(2)(b) thresholds appears in the judgment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a respondent does not oppose a Rule 5(2)(b) application for injunction and stay pending an intended appeal, the court may grant the prayers sought without contested argument.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion is granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2 (injunction and stay of orders/proceedings)
  2. 2.Costs of the Notice of Motion shall be in the intended appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Meru
H.C. Misc. No. 111 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for injunction and stay of orders/proceedings in an intended appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "SAMSON KIBERA TUARUCHIU vs MINISTER OF LANDS & SETTLEMENT & 4 OTHERS [1999] KECA 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). Civil Application No. NAI. 300 of 1998. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/108/eng@1999-05-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.