Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedApplication dated 16th November, 2018 (suit number not stated in the judgment)· [2019] KEELC 2496 (KLR)

Johnson Kasaine & 4 others v Pasaye Ole Kerema & 8 others [2019] KEELC 2496 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 July 2019
572 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court at Narok paused a 20-year land case so the plaintiffs could appeal without their rights becoming meaningless.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants, the 1st, 3rd and intended 5th Plaintiffs, moved the court by a Notice of Motion dated 16th November, 2018 under Article 162 of the Constitution and Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking a stay of further proceedings in the suit pending the lodging and hearing of their appeal against a Ruling delivered on 31st October, 2018, in which the court had allowed the inclusion of a 5th Plaintiff. The application was supported by the affidavit of Johnson Kasaine Ole Sadera and was grounded on the contention that a Notice of Appeal had been filed and that the Applicants would suffer substantial loss if the suit proceeded. The 1st to 7th Defendants opposed through grounds of opposition, arguing that stay is discretionary and must be granted for good reasons, that the intended 5th Plaintiff's stake was unascertained, and that the suit, pending for over 20 years, risked loss of crucial evidence, invoking Article 159(2)(b) on expeditious disposal. Justice Mohammed Noor Kullow applied the James Wangalwa v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto principle that the right of appeal is constitutional and actualizes access to justice, holding that an appellant who shows good cause must not be obstructed, and that hearing the matter would waste judicial time if the appeal later succeeded. The court found the Applicants had demonstrated potential loss, allowed the motion, stayed the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs. Judgment was delivered at Narok on 9th July, 2019.

Key legal issues

#
01

Stay of proceedings pending appeal

Holding

The application for stay of proceedings was allowed; the court found the Applicants had demonstrated they would suffer loss if the suit proceeded.

Reasoning

The court relied on the principle that the right of appeal is constitutional and actualizes access to justice. Although the Respondents argued the suit had been in court over 20 years and crucial evidence could be lost, the court held that an appellant showing good cause must not be obstructed, and that if the hearing proceeded and the appeal later succeeded, precious judicial time would be wasted.

p. 1
02

Judicial discretion in interlocutory applications

Holding

Discretion must be exercised judiciously, not capriciously.

Reasoning

The court acknowledged the application invoked its discretion and held itself bound to exercise that discretion judiciously so as to inspire confidence in the judicial system as one that upholds the Constitution. This informed the decision to preserve the subject matter pending the intended appeal.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • The right to appeal is a constitutional right that actualizes the right of access to justice, and anything that renders an appeal nugatory impinges the right of appeal.
  • Discretion in stay applications must be exercised judiciously so as to inspire confidence in the judicial system.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th November, 2018 is allowed
  2. 2.Proceedings in the suit are stayed pending the hearing and determination of the Applicants' application
  3. 3.Each party to bear its costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162 of the Constitution of Kenya; Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Johnson Kasaine & 4 others v Pasaye Ole Kerema & 8 others [2019] KEELC 2496 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Application dated 16th November, 2018 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2496/eng@2019-07-09

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