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. 48 of 2019 (UR. 54 of 2019)· [2020] KECA 819 (KLR)

George Mwaura Kabui v Catherine Muthoni Ireri [2020] KECA 819 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
3 April 2020
1,327 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 stopped an eviction, ruling the buyer living on the land can stay until his appeal over the disputed sale is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judgment ruling of a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Karanja, Sichale and J. Mohammed, JJA) on a Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2019 brought under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010, seeking stay of execution of an eviction order made by the Environment & Land Court at Nairobi (K. Bor, J) on 30th August 2018 in ELC No. 1032 of 2003, pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 415 of 2018. The applicant deponed that he purchased the suit property, Chania/Kanyoni/2088, from the respondent in 1990 for Kshs 70,000, fully paid, constructed a matrimonial home there and has lived on it since. The respondent opposed, contending no Land Control Board consent was obtained for the transfer or subdivision, rendering the sale a nullity, and that a similar application was pending before the ELC. Applying the settled twin principles from Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Keter, the court found the effect of lack of Land Control Board consent on the sale to be an arguable point, noting conflicting positions of the court on that question, and found the nugatory limb satisfied because the applicant is in possession of the property where his matrimonial home stands. The motion was allowed, stay of execution was granted pending the intended appeal, and costs of the motion were made to abide the outcome of the appeal. The ruling does not disturb the decision of the Environment & Land Court; it preserves the status pending appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal is arguable

Holding

The point whether lack of Land Control Board consent vitiates the sale is arguable, given conflicting positions of the Court on the effect of absence of consent

Reasoning

The applicant contended that consent of the Land Control Board was sought and obtained; the respondent asserted none was obtained, rendering the sale a nullity. The court noted conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal on the effect of lack of consent and held the point bona fide arguable without making final findings, as required at the interlocutory stage.

p. 3
02

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay

Holding

Since the applicant is in possession and resides on the suit property with his matrimonial home there, eviction would render the appeal nugatory; the ends of justice require he remain pending appeal

Reasoning

The court accepted that the applicant is undisputedly in possession, having built a matrimonial home and lived on the property since the 1990s. Eviction would be disruptive and potentially irreversible pending appeal, so the nugatory limb was satisfied and stay was warranted in the interests of justice.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both twin principles: an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent stay
  • A single bona fide arguable ground suffices to establish arguability
  • A Rule 5(2)(b) court must not make definitive or final findings of fact or law at the interlocutory stage

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the orders of the Environment & Land Court made on 30th August 2018 ordering eviction of the applicant from Chania/Kanyoni/2088, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal (motion dated 11th February 2019 allowed)
  2. 2.Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of the intended appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010Rule 5(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010Rule 75

Cases cited (8)

  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui vs. Tony Keter & 5 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Ruben & 9 others v Nderitu & Another
    (1989) KLR 459
  • Halai & Another v Thornton & Turpin (1963) Ltd.
    (1990) KLR 365
  • David Morton Silverstein v Atsango Chesoni
    Civil Application No. Nai 189 of 2001
  • Damji Pragji Mandavia v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (K) Ltd
    Civil Application No. Nai 345 of 2004
  • Joseph Gitahi Gachau & Another v. Pioneer Holdings (A) Ltd. & 2 others
    Civil Application No. 124 of 2008
  • Reliance Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments Ltd
    [2002] 1 EA 227
  • International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases v. Kinyua
    [1990] KLR 403
On appeal from
Environment & Land Court of Kenya at Nairobi
ELC No. 1032 of 2003
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "George Mwaura Kabui v Catherine Muthoni Ireri [2020] KECA 819 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Application No. 48 of 2019 (UR. 54 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/819/eng@2020-04-03

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