Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application No. 122 of 2019 (UR 116/2019)· [2019] KECA 501 (KLR)

Charles Akelo Ong’wen v Beatrice Muthio Nzioka

Court of Appeal
19 July 2019
2,442 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to halt a land buyer's eviction, holding that money can compensate the seller if his appeal later succeeds.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Court of Appeal ruling (Koome, Sichale and Odek, JJ.A) determined an application under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules by Charles Akelo Ong'wen seeking stay of execution of the judgment of Nyamweya, J. of the Environment and Land Court dated 8th December 2014, in which Beatrice Muthio Nzioki was declared the legal owner of Nairobi/Block 140/40/70 Nyayo Estate Embakasi and the applicant was ordered to vacate within 60 days, with damages set off against the balance of purchase price. The applicant's main ground of intended appeal was that he was denied a fair hearing before the trial court. The court restated the twin Rule 5(2)(b) principles: the intended appeal must be arguable and, absent a stay, would be rendered nugatory if successful. On arguability, the court found from the record and the respondent's replying affidavit that the applicant had been given multiple opportunities, having obtained adjournments, cross-examined the respondent and filed written submissions; the trial judge had considered his evidence and defence, and the court was unconvinced of arguability. On the nugatory limb, the court held that the applicant had turned his house into a commercial project by selling it, so any loss would be compensable in damages, particularly given the respondent's undertaking not to sell the property and her asserted financial capacity. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent, the Ksh. 1 million security deposit was ordered refunded to the applicant, and, per the respondent's undertaking, the court ordered that the suit property not be transferred to a third party pending the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Twin principles for stay under Rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

An applicant must demonstrate an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay; both conditions are assessed against the facts of each case

Reasoning

The court restated the settled Rule 5(2)(b) jurisprudence, citing Trust Bank Limited & Another v Investech Bank Limited & 3 Others, that the jurisdiction is original and discretionary and that the guiding principles must be considered against the facts and circumstances of each case. The applicant bore the burden of satisfying both limbs.

p. 3
02

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The court was not persuaded that the ground that the applicant was denied a hearing rendered the appeal arguable

Reasoning

The record and the respondent's affidavit showed the applicant was given multiple opportunities to present his case: he obtained two adjournments, failed to attend on 09.06.2014, yet cross-examined the respondent and filed written submissions. The trial judge considered his defence, witness statement and submissions to the extent of allowing a set-off, so the decision was rendered on merit.

p. 3
03

Nugatory aspect

Holding

Because the transaction was commercial and the respondent gave an undertaking not to sell the property and showed ability to pay damages, the appeal would not be rendered nugatory by execution

Reasoning

The applicant had sold his own house for commercial gain, having entered a tenant purchase agreement with NSSF and a subsequent sale to the respondent. Any loss flowing from eviction would be compensable in damages; the respondent undertook not to sell the property and claimed financial capacity as a senior officer and director of a parastatal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay of execution or injunction under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the twin conditions that the intended appeal is arguable and that, unless the order is granted, the appeal if successful will be rendered nugatory
  • Where a sale transaction was commercial in nature, loss suffered by a successful appellant can be compensated by damages, so execution does not render the appeal nugatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.The deposit of Ksh. 1 million paid by the applicant as security for costs is to be refunded to the applicant
  3. 3.The suit property should not be transferred to a third party until the appeal is heard and determined, per the respondent's undertaking
  4. 4.Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land Court)
ELC Case No. 272 of 2009
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for stay of execution / injunction pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Charles Akelo Ong’wen v Beatrice Muthio Nzioka", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Application No. 122 of 2019 (UR 116/2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/501/eng@2019-07-19

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