Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNarok ELC 246 of 2017 (Notice of Motion dated 22nd October, 2019)· [2019] KEELC 57 (KLR)

Merin Ole Tuyoto & 124 others v Chairman Limanet Group Ranch Committee & 3 others [2019] KEELC 57 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 December 2019
MKMohammed Kullow
455 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Narok dismissed a request to pause a magistrates' court land case because the applicants proved no connection or interest in the land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 22nd October 2019, brought under sections 3, 3A and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, the Plaintiffs/Applicants sought a stay of proceedings in Narok Magistrate's Court ELC No. 123 of 2019 and an order of status quo over land parcel Cis Mara/Ilmashariani Morijo/1230 pending determination of Narok ELC No. 246 of 2017. They contended that the lower court plaintiffs were seeking injunctions against them over land that arose from the sub-division of parcel Cis Mara/Ilmashariani Morijo/48, and that they would suffer irreparable loss if the proceedings were not stayed. The application was supported by the affidavit of Merin Ole Tuyoto. The interested party, who is the plaintiff in the lower court suit, opposed the application, contending that he is the registered proprietor of parcel 1230 and that the parcel is not subject to the litigation before the High Court since he had joined that suit. The court noted that the application was filed after the conclusion of a long and protracted hearing, with the substantive suit awaiting judgment. On the evidence, the court found no mutation forms or maps demonstrating that parcel 1230 was a sub-division of parcel 48, and the Applicants had not demonstrated their interest in the matter. The application was accordingly found unmerited and dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants were entitled to a stay of proceedings in the lower court under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

The application was not merited and was dismissed with costs

Reasoning

The application was filed after a long, protracted hearing with the substantive suit awaiting judgment. The Applicants relied on the claim that the lower court suit land arose from a sub-division of parcel 48, but produced no mutation forms or maps to prove this. They also failed to demonstrate their interest in the matter. The court therefore found no basis to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis that land in a lower court suit arose from a sub-division of land in a High Court suit must demonstrate the sub-division by evidence such as mutation forms or maps, and must demonstrate the interest they have in the matter

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 22nd October, 2019 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3, 3A and 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3, 3A and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Merin Ole Tuyoto & 124 others v Chairman Limanet Group Ranch Committee & 3 others [2019] KEELC 57 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Narok ELC 246 of 2017 (Notice of Motion dated 22nd October, 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/57/eng@2019-12-16

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