Easy Properties Limited v Esther Kituyi
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to pause a Kshs 7.7 million refund order against Easy Properties, finding the company's appeal had no arguable grounds.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated an arguable appeal for purposes of stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b)
The applicant had no arguable appeal; the payment of the purchase price to the applicant or its sales agent and the sale to a third party were not in dispute, so the appeal lacked merit on the twin-principle test.
The court restated the Kang'ethe Kinyanjui twin principles: arguable appeal and nugatoriness. It found it undisputed that the respondent paid the purchase price to the applicant or its agent, that the applicant resold the property, and that the respondent got no value. Blaming the sales agent did not raise an arguable issue, so the first limb failed and the second limb was not reached.
Legal principles established
#- An application for stay of execution pending appeal under rule 5(2)(b) is predicated on the twin principles of an arguable appeal and nugatoriness absent stay; a single bona fide arguable issue suffices and an arguable appeal need not be one that must succeed.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated July 7, 2021 seeking stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- ELC No. 15 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Easy Properties Limited v Esther Kituyi", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Appeal (Application) E406 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1209/eng@2022-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.