Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others [2018] KEELC 1558 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kitale refused to halt an eviction ordered by the National Land Commission because the applicant could not prove he would suffer substantial loss.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
No substantial loss was demonstrated because the suit land is not registered in the applicant's name and no evidence of structures on the land was given
The court found no evidence of structures on the land and noted its earlier judgment that the land is not registered in the applicant's name. Without registration it is difficult to see how he would suffer substantial loss; the land would still exist at the end of the appeal, and the applicant did not show any intention to dispose of the land or part with its possession.
Timeous filing
The application was filed timeously and the applicant was blameless on this condition
The application was filed soon after judgment was delivered and before the lapse of the 14-day stay granted upon oral application. This condition was therefore satisfied, though satisfaction of one condition alone could not sustain the application.
Security
The applicant had offered security, though without definite details, and the court would have defined it had it been inclined to grant the orders
Although no definite details of security were given, the court found that security had been offered and that it would have defined the security to be deposited had it been minded to grant the stay. This condition was thus not the basis for refusal.
Legal principles established
#- All conditions for the grant of a stay of execution must be proved without exception; failure to establish substantial loss is fatal to the application
- The conditions for stay under Order 42 rule 6(2) are that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, the application is made without unreasonable delay, and security is given
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 3rd April 2018 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents and the interested parties
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v National Land Commission & 2 others [2018] KEELC 1558 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1558/eng@2018-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.