Teresiah Somokwony Kibor v Paul Chepkonga Biwott & another [2020] KEELC 2898 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to halt execution of a land judgment because the appellant could not prove she would suffer real, substantial loss.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution pending appeal was merited
Stay refused because the Appellant failed to establish substantial loss; her affidavit claim of residing on the suit land was contradicted by the parties' own admissions and the court's site visit.
The Court considered the Motion, affidavits, counsel's submissions and its own observation during a site visit. Both parties admitted the suit land had not been used since around 2015-2016. The Appellant pointed out her home on a bordering plot, contradicting her sworn claim that she lived on the suit land. Having failed to show substantial loss, stay could not issue and she was to bear the costs.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate that she will suffer substantial loss if the order is not granted.
Court orders
#- 1.The Appellant's Notice of Motion dated 19th December, 2019 seeking stay of execution is dismissed.
- 2.The Appellant to meet the 1st Respondent's costs in the application.
- On appeal from
- Lower Court
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal (notice of appeal dated 18th December, 2019)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Teresiah Somokwony Kibor v Paul Chepkonga Biwott & another [2020] KEELC 2898 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 19th December, 2019 in the appeal whose judgment was delivered on 6th December, 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2898/eng@2020-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.