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 AppealAllowedCivil Application (Rule 5(2)(b)) arising from ELC No 370 of 2017· [2023] KECA 169 (KLR)

Bett v Olamroi & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E428 of 2022) [2023] KECA 169 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
17 February 2023
2,061 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal halted eviction and title cancellation against a landowner, confirming that one arguable appeal ground can justify a stay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judgment ruling of a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Musinga, P, Mativo and Korir, JJ.A) delivered on February 17, 2023 on the applicant's notice of motion dated November 17, 2022, brought under sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The applicant, the registered proprietor of Kajiado/Lorngusua/1299, sought stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Environment and Land Court (Gicheru, J) delivered November 7, 2022 in ELC No 370 of 2017, by which her suit was dismissed with costs and the respondents' counterclaim was upheld on findings of fraud against her vendor and a legitimate claim by the 1st respondent, who bequeathed the land to the 2nd respondent. Applying the settled twin principles for rule 5(2)(b) relief as restated in Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter, the court found that the draft memorandum of appeal raised bona fide arguable grounds, including whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the suit and in introducing unpleaded issues. On the nugatory limb, the court held that in the absence of stay, execution of eviction orders, cancellation of the applicant's title and possible destruction of property would be onerous, if not impossible, to undo, and damages would not adequately compensate her. Both limbs having been satisfied, the court allowed the application, issued a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, and ordered that costs of the application abide the outcome of the appeal. The decision below was not disturbed at this interlocutory stage.

Key legal issues

#
01

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The draft memorandum of appeal raised arguable issues; an arguable appeal need not succeed, only merit full argument.

Reasoning

The court perused the draft memorandum and found prima facie arguable points, including whether the ELC judge erred in dismissing the suit and in introducing unpleaded issues based on tribunal findings. Relying on Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter, the court reiterated that it must not make definitive findings of fact or law at this stage, and that a single bona fide arguable ground meets the threshold.

p. 4
02

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory without stay

Holding

Execution would lead to eviction, cancellation of title and destruction of property, which would be onerous if not impossible to undo, rendering the appeal nugatory.

Reasoning

The court weighed the conflicting claims: the applicant is the registered owner and risks losing the property through eviction, cancellation of title and possible destruction of property. Such events would be difficult to reverse and damages would not be a practical remedy, so both limbs of rule 5(2)(b) were satisfied.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both limbs: an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay.
  • A single bona fide arguable ground suffices to satisfy the arguability limb.
  • The same principles apply whether the application is for stay of execution, injunction, stay of further proceedings or preservation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A stay of execution of the judgment and decree issued by the Environment and Land Court on November 7, 2022 (Gicheru, J) in ELC No 370 of 2017 pending the hearing and determination of the applicant's appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3A
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3B
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (5)

  • Damji Pragji Mandavia v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (K) Ltd
    Civil Application No NAI 345 of 2004
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Keter & 5 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Absalom Dova v Tarbo Transporters
    [2013] eKLR
  • Governors Baloon Safari Ltd v Skyship Company Limited & County Council of Transmara
    Civil Application No Nai 32 of 2015
  • Edwin K Too and Paul Sitienei
    Civil Application No 93 of 2020
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court
ELC No 370 of 2017: Anne Karegi Bett v Merio Olamroi and 2 Others
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bett v Olamroi & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E428 of 2022) [2023] KECA 169 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Application (Rule 5(2)(b)) arising from ELC No 370 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/169/eng@2023-02-17

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