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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KECA 569 (KLR)

Mramba (Suing on behalf of the Estate of Kahindi Mramba - Deceased) & 3 others v Cannon Assurance (K) Limited (Civil Application E110 of 2023) [2024] KECA 569 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
24 May 2024
2,710 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it can protect land occupants awaiting appeal with an injunction, even when a stay of execution is legally impossible.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application by Notice of Motion under rules 5(2)(b) and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, Mombasa, by four applicants — the widow and son of the late Kahindi Mramba Mweni and two neighbours — seeking stay of execution of, and an injunction pending their intended appeal against, the judgment of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa delivered on 29th November 2023, which dismissed their adverse possession claim over portions measuring 2.5 and 4 acres of Plot No. Mn. Sec. 111/13, CR 5692, of which they claimed over 30 years' occupation. The respondent opposed, arguing that the judgment dismissed the suit and hence was a negative order incapable of being stayed, and that no arguable appeal or nugatory prejudice was shown. The Court (Murgor, Laibuta and Odunga, JJA, delivering a single judgment) restated the conjunctive twin conditions under rule 5(2)(b): an arguable appeal and nugatory prejudice. It found the intended first appeal arguable since it would require re-evaluation of the adverse possession evidence, and found nugatory prejudice given alleged attempts at eviction, vandalism on the land, and the respondent's silence as to the portions beyond the ¼ acre it had allocated. Relying on Wambora and Kimanthi, the Court held that although a negative order cannot be stayed, nothing prevents it from granting injunctive relief pending appeal; the Giella prima facie case threshold does not apply to rule 5(2)(b) applications. It granted an injunction preserving the applicants' occupation of the two portions pending the intended appeal, refused the stay limb, and ordered costs of the application to be in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Twin conditions for relief under rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

The applicants crossed the first hurdle: the intended appeal, being a first appeal on adverse possession findings, is arguable even if only one bona fide ground is raised.

Reasoning

The Court restated that an applicant must file a Notice of Appeal to invoke jurisdiction, then demonstrate an arguable appeal and that it would be rendered nugatory absent stay. The conditions are conjunctive. An arguable appeal need not succeed; a solitary arguable point suffices. The intended appeal challenges the ELC's finding that adverse possession was not proved, and as a first appeal it would involve re-evaluation of evidence, so it is not frivolous.

p. 4
02

Nugatory aspect on a land dispute

Holding

The nugatory condition was met because the applicants alleged attempted eviction by unknown persons and the respondent was silent on evicting them from the land beyond the allocated ¼ acre.

Reasoning

The respondent only undertook not to evict the applicants from a ¼ acre portion it allocated to them, remaining silent as to the rest of the land occupied. Coupled with the reported vandalism and invasion of the property, and the principle that transfer of land to a third party renders an appeal nugatory, the applicants demonstrated that the intended appeal would be rendered futile absent preservation orders.

p. 4
03

Stay versus injunction pending appeal where the decree is a negative order

Holding

A negative order (dismissal) cannot be stayed, but the Court is entitled to consider and grant an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) in appropriate cases.

Reasoning

The Court distinguished the principles governing rule 5(2)(b) relief from the Giella v Cassman Brown principles for interlocutory injunctions under Order 40, noting the latter sets a higher bar (prima facie case) than an arguable appeal. Citing Wambora and Kimanthi, it held that where stay is inappropriate, the injunction limb of a rule 5(2)(b) application may independently be granted to preserve the suit property.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A stay of a negative order (a dismissal or striking out, where no party was ordered to do or refrain from doing anything) cannot be granted under rule 5(2)(b), but the Court may still grant injunctive relief pending appeal in appropriate cases.
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the twin conjunctive conditions of an arguable appeal and nugatory prejudice; a solitary bona fide arguable point suffices.
  • Where a land dispute may result in the property passing to a third party, the appeal or intended appeal would be rendered nugatory.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An injunction restraining the respondent from selling, trespassing on, alienating, evicting or interfering with the applicants' quiet possession, occupation, peaceful enjoyment and/or use of the portions measuring 2.5 acres or thereabouts and 4 acres or thereabouts of Plot No. Mn. Sec. 111/13, CR 5692 occupied by the applicants, pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 5(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 47
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010 (formerly Order 39 of the repealed Rules)Order 40

Cases cited (15)

  • Stanley Kang’ethe v Tony Keter & 5 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • William Nto Makuta M’ethenga v Baikimbia Kirimania
    [2017] KLR
  • Jennifer Akinyi Osodo v Boniface Okumu Osodo & 3 Others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Peter Gathecha Gachiri v Attorney General and 4 Others
    Civil Application Nai 24 of 2014 (unreported)
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
  • Kenya Shell Ltd v. Kibiru & Another
    [1986] KLR 410
  • 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
  • Raol Investment Ltd. v Lake Credit Finance Ltd.
    Civil Application No. Nai. 303 of 1997
  • Martin Nyaga Wambora v. The County Assembly of Embu and 6 Others
    Civil Application Nai 46 of 2015 (unreported)
  • Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Willsden Investment Limited & 6 Others
    (supra)
  • Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd.
    [1973] EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd. v. First American Bank of Kenya Ltd. & 2 Others
    [2003] KLR 125
  • Joyce Mutethya Kimanthi v Timothy Kimanzi Kiiva and others
    Nai Civil Application No. E321 of 2021
  • Nairobi Metropolitan PSV Saccos Union Limited and Twenty Five others vs. County of Nairobi Government and three others
    [2014] eKLR
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 5(2)(b) and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules (interim appellate jurisdiction pending intended appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mramba (Suing on behalf of the Estate of Kahindi Mramba - Deceased) & 3 others v Cannon Assurance (K) Limited (Civil Application E110 of 2023) [2024] KECA 569 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/569/eng@2024-05-24

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