Mundu (Suing on behalf of Elly Mundu Olangi) v Miduri (Suing on behalf of Albert Miduri Olang) (Civil Appeal (Application) 46 of 2020) [2024] KECA 873 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal preserved the current state of contested family land until an appeal over estate property distribution is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether, if the orders sought are not granted and the appeal succeeds, the appeal will be rendered nugatory
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The appeal is arguable, not frivolous, because the appellant's grievance is that the High Court distributed property not comprising part of the estate and disregarded evidence to that effect.
The Court applied the settled twin test for Rule 5(2)(b) applications. On the first limb, it considered the grounds on the face of the application and the memorandum of appeal, chiefly that the learned Judge distributed property that did not form part of the estate and disregarded evidence. Since an arguable appeal need not necessarily succeed, the Court found the threshold met without determining the merits.
Nugatory value and the appropriate relief
Given that the decree had been executed, with third-party titles cancelled and third parties in occupation and having invested on the properties, the Court maintained the status quo as at the date of the ruling rather than issuing a blanket stay.
The applicant showed that the decree had been extracted and served on land registries, resulting in cancellation of titles of third parties said to be bona fide purchasers who were in occupation, had built permanent residences and buried loved ones thereon. In those circumstances the Court considered maintaining the status quo the order that commended itself, preserving the subject matter pending the appeal.
Effect of death of an appellant and revival of an abated appeal
The appeal had abated by operation of Rule 102(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules on the death of Elly Mundu Olang, but was revived and the applicant substituted pursuant to a ruling of Mumbi Ngugi, JA delivered on 27th October 2023.
The judgment records the procedural history: the original appellant died on 7th October 2020 during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal abated under Rule 102(2), and on an application dated 31st October 2022 the Court revived the appeal and substituted Moses Okiya Mundu. This underpinned the applicant's locus to bring the present application on behalf of the original appellant.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the Court that the appeal is arguable and that, if the orders are not granted and the appeal succeeds, it will be rendered nugatory.
- An arguable appeal is not one that will necessarily succeed; it suffices that the appeal is not frivolous.
Court orders
#- 1.That the status quo obtaining as at the date of delivery of the ruling with regard to the properties known as Kisumu/Muhoroni/863, Kisumu/Muhoroni/1314, 1315 and 1316 and Kisumu/Muhoroni/918 shall be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.That costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- Succession Cause 214 of 2008 - Estate of Manasse Olang Oriewo (Deceased)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#A stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court in the precise terms sought (cancellation/reversion orders stayed)
The Court instead moulded relief as maintenance of the status quo as at the date of the ruling rather than a full stay of execution
Costs
Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the applicant has a duty to satisfy the Court that the appeal is arguable and that should the Court decline the orders sought, and the appeal is ultimately successful, the same will be rendered nugatory
Mindful as we are that an arguable appeal is not one that will necessarily succeed, we do not think the appeal is frivolous. It is arguable.
the status quo obtaining as at the date of delivery of this ruling with regard to the properties known as Kisumu/Muhoroni/863, Kisumu/Muhoroni/1314, 1315 and 1316 and Kisumu/Muhoroni/918, shall be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mundu (Suing on behalf of Elly Mundu Olangi) v Miduri (Suing on behalf of Albert Miduri Olang) (Civil Appeal (Application) 46 of 2020) [2024] KECA 873 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Application (Rule 5(2)(b)) arising from Civil Appeal out of Kisumu High Court Succession Cause 214 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/873/eng@2024-07-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.