Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2015] KEELC 71 (KLR)

Joseph Kibet Tuwei v Lydia Jemaiyo Too & another [2015] KEELC 71 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 October 2015
2,080 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

#

The Eldoret Environment and Land Court refused to halt execution of a land judgment because the applicant only claimed she would suffer loss without proving it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a notice of motion dated 10th December 2014 in which Lydia Jemaiyo Too, the 1st defendant in a concluded land suit, sought a stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 27th November 2014. In that judgment the trial court had found that the titles held by the 1st and 2nd defendants were obtained irregularly and un-procedurally, having been procured after the death of the registered proprietor without succession proceedings under the Law of Succession Act (Cap 140), and ordered cancellation of the 2nd defendant's title with the land to remain registered in the name of Mesa Mukoro. The applicant lodged a Notice of Appeal and applied for stay pending appeal, contending she bought the suit parcels in 1997, would suffer loss of stamp duty and irreparable loss having exchanged the parcels to Cheruiyot A. Limo, and that the respondent was a stranger to the transaction. The respondents opposed, arguing no appeal had been instituted, the time for appealing had expired, and the applicant had not shown substantial loss. Ombwayo J held that a notice of appeal is deemed an appeal unless struck out, supported by Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules, and that the application was filed without unreasonable delay. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate the substantial loss necessary under Order 42 Rule 6, the burden being on her to prove and not merely assert it; she also failed to show the respondent could not compensate her if the appeal succeeded, and she could contest her interest in the succession cause. The application was dismissed with costs on 2nd October 2015 at Eldoret.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a pending appeal existed given only a Notice of Appeal had been lodged

Holding

A notice of appeal is deemed an appeal unless struck out; the notice lodged in the Court of Appeal registry constituted a pending appeal

Reasoning

The court rejected the respondents' argument that the absence of a filed memorandum of appeal meant there was no appeal. It relied on Rule 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which extends the sixty-day institution period where proceedings have been requested, and found the applicant had applied for typed proceedings which had not been supplied. The respondents' contrary argument was held to be a misapprehension of the law.

p. 3
02

Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay

Holding

There was no unreasonable delay; the application was filed within 13 days of judgment and 7 days of the Notice of Appeal

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered on 27th November 2014 and the application was dated 10th December 2014. The court measured the interval from both the judgment and the lodging of the Notice of Appeal and found the delay neither inordinate nor unreasonable, satisfying the first limb of Order 42 rule 6(2)(a).

p. 4
03

Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss

Holding

The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss; mere assertion is insufficient and the burden of proof lies on the applicant

Reasoning

The applicant claimed loss of stamp duty and risk from having exchanged the parcels to a third party, but none of this was proven. Further, since the court had ordered the property to revert to a deceased intestate owner, the applicant would have an opportunity to contest her interest in the succession cause. She also did not show the respondent lacked means to compensate her if the appeal succeeded. The stay conditions were therefore not met.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A notice of appeal is deemed an appeal unless struck out by the court
  • The burden lies on the applicant for stay to demonstrate substantial loss, not merely to assert it
  • For stay of execution, the applicant must show a pending appeal, no unreasonable delay, substantial loss, and provide security for due performance of the decree

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 10th December, 2014 for stay of execution is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1)-(3)
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 81(1)-(2)
  • Law of Succession ActCap 140 Laws of Kenya
On appeal from
High Court / trial court (first-instance suit)
null
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Kibet Tuwei v Lydia Jemaiyo Too & another [2015] KEELC 71 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/71/eng@2015-11-02

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