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. 120 of 2001 (UR.68/2001)

Jared Iqbal Abdul Bahman & another v Bernard Alfred Wekesa Sambu & another [2001] KECA 329 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
20 September 2001
ROR.S.C. OmoloASA.B. ShahEOE. O. O'Kubasu
248 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 halted enforcement of a land judgment because the losing party's appeal was already scheduled for hearing just two months later.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered on 20 September 2001 by Omolo, Shah and O'Kubasu, JJ.A, in Civil Application No. NAI. 120 of 2001 (UR.68/2001). Jared Iqbal Abdul Bahman and Adila Alibashir, the applicants, sought a stay of execution pending an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Kasanga-Mulwa, J) dated 6 October 2000 in H.C.C.C. No. 1059 of 1995. The respondents to the application were Bernard Alfred Wekesa Sambu and John Mureithi Kariuki. The underlying dispute concerned land known as L.R. No. 209/9684 situated in Nairobi. The applicants had already lodged an appeal, Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2001, and that appeal was already fixed for hearing before the Court of Appeal on 21 November 2001. At the hearing, Mr. Iseme, counsel for the first respondent, conceded that the pending appeal was arguable, and the Court agreed, observing that he was quite right in so conceding. Given the concession and the imminent hearing date, the Court saw no point in the execution of the decree and ordered that execution of the decree in H.C.C.C. No. 1059 of 1995 be stayed pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2001. On costs, the Court directed that the costs of the application would be costs in the appeal. The ruling is a single judgment of the full bench of three Judges of Appeal; no separate or dissenting opinion was delivered, and no authority or statutory provision is cited in it.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether execution of the High Court decree should be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the applicants' appeal.

Holding

Yes. The stay was granted on the strength of two undisputed facts: counsel for the first respondent conceded, and the Court agreed, that the appeal already lodged (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2001) was arguable; and that appeal was already fixed for hearing on 21 November 2001. Given the imminence of the hearing, execution of the decree in H.C.C.C. No. 1059 of 1995 would serve no point, and execution was stayed pending the appeal's determination.

Reasoning

The Court disposed of the application on concession and case-management facts rather than contested argument. Mr. Iseme, for the first respondent, conceded the pending appeal was arguable and the Court endorsed the concession as correct. The dispute concerned land being L.R. No. 209/9684 situate in Nairobi. Because Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2001 was already fixed for hearing before the Court on 21 November 2001, barely two months after the ruling, the Court reasoned there was no point in executing the decree in the interim, and stayed execution pending the appeal, with the application's costs made costs in the appeal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an appeal from a decree is conceded or found to be arguable and is already fixed for hearing before the Court of Appeal, the Court may stay execution of the decree pending the hearing and determination of that appeal, since execution in such circumstances serves no purpose.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Execution of the decree in H.C.C.C. No. 1059 of 1995 stayed pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2001.
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal.
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 1059 of 1995
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated in the ruling; the Court determined an application for stay of execution pending an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, brought as Civil Application No. NAI. 120 of 2001 (UR.68/2001).

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jared Iqbal Abdul Bahman & another v Bernard Alfred Wekesa Sambu & another [2001] KECA 329 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Application No. NAI. 120 of 2001 (UR.68/2001). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/329/eng@2001-09-20

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