Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowed· [2016] KEELC 1212 (KLR)

Alice Njambi Waitiki & another Both suing as the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Robinson Kinuthia Muriakiara) v John Kamau Muchai & 3 others Sued as Trustees of Kinoo Water Trust) [2016] KEELC 1212 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 February 2016
962 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court paused an eviction order against a water trust because cutting off supply would hurt thousands of households, but required Kshs 2 million security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendants/Applicants moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 20th July 2015 seeking stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of their appeal against the judgment delivered on 19th June 2015 in this suit. The application, anchored on Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, was supported by the affidavit of Jacinta W. Ndirangu, the 3rd Defendant and a trustee of Kinoo Water Trust, who contended that the trust supplies over 3000 households with water from the suit property and that eviction would cause irreparable hardship. The 1st Plaintiff, Alice Njambi Waitiki, opposed the application, asserting the Defendants came to court with unclean hands by exaggerating the number of households served, supplying in truth only about 533 member households, and that the intended appeal had no chance of success. The court framed three issues: substantial loss, unreasonable delay and security. Applying the Machira authority, it held that substantial loss must be specified and demonstrated; finding that whether 533 or 3000 households were served, many households would suffer water shortage if stay was refused, the court was satisfied substantial loss would ensue. The application was found to have been filed without unreasonable delay. Since the Applicants had not indicated what security they would offer, the court allowed the application on condition that the Defendants deposit Kshs. 2,000,000/- in court as security for performance of the judgment should their appeal fail. The stay of execution pending appeal was accordingly granted on those terms.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substantial loss

Holding

Substantial loss established because eviction would cause water shortage to many households.

Reasoning

The Applicants supply water drawn from the suit property to numerous households. Although the Plaintiffs disputed the figure, claiming only 533 member households rather than 3000, the court held that on either figure the loss of water supply would affect many households before the appeal is heard, satisfying the substantial loss threshold under Order 42 rule 6(2).

p. 2
02

Unreasonable delay

Holding

No unreasonable delay; application filed within required time.

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered on 19th June 2015 and the application filed on 21st July 2015. The court found this period acceptable and held there was no delay in bringing the application.

p. 2
03

Security

Holding

Stay granted conditional on deposit of Kshs. 2,000,000/- as security.

Reasoning

The Applicants had not stated what security they would furnish. Applying Order 42 rule 6(2)(b), the court required such security as may ultimately be binding upon them and directed a deposit of Kshs. 2,000,000/- as security for performance of the judgment should the appeal fail.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking stay must specify the substantial loss likely to be suffered; mere assertion that the appeal will be rendered nugatory is insufficient.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal granted
  2. 2.Defendants directed to deposit in court the sum of Kshs. 2,000,000/- as security for performance of the judgment should their Appeal fail
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Alice Njambi Waitiki & another Both suing as the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Robinson Kinuthia Muriakiara) v John Kamau Muchai & 3 others Sued as Trustees of Kinoo Water Trust) [2016] KEELC 1212 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/1212/eng@2016-02-05

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