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 AppealPartially AllowedCivil Application No. NAI. 268 of 2019· [2020] KECA 732 (KLR)

Peter K. Ng’ang’a v John W. Karimi & another [2020] KECA 732 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
24 April 2020
1,143 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal paused a demolition order worth Kshs.85 million, ruling an intended land appeal was arguable and would be pointless if demolition went ahead.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory application under rules 1(2) and 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010, seeking a stay of execution and/or injunction pending an intended appeal against the judgment of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (J.M. Onyango, J.) delivered on 23rd May, 2019, which declared John W. Karimi the owner of L.R No. 209/12116/17 and issued mandatory injunctions compelling Peter K. Ng'ang'a to demolish structures worth over Kshs.50,000,000 and vacate the property. The dispute had a long history: the 2nd respondent agreed in 1994 to sell the property to the 1st respondent, litigation followed in the chief magistrate's court and on appeal, culminating in a consent judgment of 19th February, 2003. The 1st respondent failed to honour the consent order, and the 2nd respondent sold the property to the applicant in 2004, who paid the full price, obtained a transfer, and developed the property. Applying the settled twin principles for rule 5(2)(b) applications, the Court held the intended appeal arguable on the 11 proposed grounds, and found it would be rendered nugatory if the developments, valued at Kshs.85,000,000, were demolished. The Court granted a stay of execution of the ELC judgment and decree pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal, directed that the record of appeal be filed within 45 days, and ordered that costs of the application abide the outcome of the appeal. The 1st respondent's proposal for an estate agent to collect rents was not adopted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The intended appeal was arguable based on the draft memorandum containing 11 proposed grounds of appeal

Reasoning

The court examined the draft memorandum of appeal with 11 proposed grounds and satisfied itself that the intended appeal was arguable, without expressing any view on the merits at that interlocutory stage.

p. 2
02

Nugatory value of the intended appeal

Holding

The appeal would be rendered nugatory if the Kshs.85,000,000 developments were demolished pending appeal

Reasoning

The ELC had ordered a mandatory injunction compelling the applicant to demolish structures it had erected, valued at Kshs.85,000,000. The 1st respondent's counsel conceded the applicant put up the developments. Demolition pending appeal would render a successful appeal nugatory, justifying stay.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must demonstrate both that the intended appeal is arguable and that, if successful, it will be rendered nugatory unless the order sought is granted

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Environment and Land Court delivered on 23rd May, 2019 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
  2. 2.The record of appeal, if not yet filed, to be filed within 45 days from the date of the ruling

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010Rule 1(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010Rule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Trust Bank Limited & Another v Investech Bank Limited & 3 Others
    [2000] eKLR
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nairobi
E.L.C Case No. 444 of 2005
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 1(2) and 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter K. Ng’ang’a v John W. Karimi & another [2020] KECA 732 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Application No. NAI. 268 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/732/eng@2020-04-24

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