Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEldoret E&L Case (suit filed 12th November 2018 - number not stated in judgment)· [2021] KEELC 3247 (KLR)

Good News Church of Africa v Board of Management Eldoret Secondary School [2021] KEELC 3247 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 April 2021
3,329 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret refused to pause a land case because the church showed no real appeal, no arguable case, and no loss it would suffer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret (M. A. Odeny, J) determined a notice of motion dated 1st December 2020 by the defendant, a registered church trustees body, seeking a stay of proceedings in a land suit pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal against a ruling delivered on 17th November 2020. That ruling had dismissed the defendant's application for leave to further amend its defence, which the court found was a disguised attempt to enjoin the Gospel Furthering Fellowship Registered Trustees and the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu as co-defendants. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that no appeal had actually been filed (only a notice of appeal), that the application was a delaying tactic, and that the defendant had already filed a fresh suit, Eldoret E&L Originating Summons Cause No. 8 of 2020, against the plaintiff and the proposed co-defendants. Applying the settled principles for stay of proceedings - an arguable appeal, expeditious filing and substantial loss - the court held that only a notice of appeal existed with no filed appeal, that no arguable appeal or prima facie case had been established, and that no substantial loss had been demonstrated since the defendant had an alternative avenue in the parallel suit. The court cautioned against parallel processes embarrassing the courts, found the application lacked merit, and dismissed it with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court has power to order stay of proceedings pending appeal

Holding

The court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and discretion under Order 42 Rule 6(1), exercised in the interest of justice

Reasoning

The applicant invoked Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permit the court appealed from to order stay of proceedings for sufficient cause. The court accepted the power exists but stressed that stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action, impinging on access to justice and fair trial, so the test is high and stringent and the discretion must be exercised sparingly.

p. 2
02

Whether the applicant established a prima facie arguable appeal

Holding

No - no appeal had been filed and the intended appeal was not shown to be arguable

Reasoning

The applicant attached only a notice of appeal; there was no evidence any appeal had actually been lodged in the Court of Appeal. The intended appeal concerned dismissal of an application to further amend the defence to enjoin co-defendants, which the court had dismissed because a defendant cannot impose a co-defendant on a plaintiff who has no claim against that party. No compelling reason or prima facie case was established.

p. 4
03

Whether the application was brought timeously and in good faith

Holding

Yes - the application filed about three weeks after the ruling was held to have been made without delay

Reasoning

The ruling dismissing the application for further amendment was delivered on 17th November 2020 and the application for stay was filed on 8th December 2020, a period of about three weeks. The court found this constituted no unreasonable delay, consistent with authority that delay is a factor but not necessarily the predominant one. Nevertheless, delay was not decisive because the other grounds failed.

p. 4
04

Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted

Holding

No - the applicant demonstrated no substantial loss and had an alternative avenue in a suit already filed against the proposed co-defendants

Reasoning

Substantial loss is a key consideration in stay applications, and the applicant bore the burden of establishing the loss it would suffer. The applicant showed none. Moreover, the very parties it sought to enjoin as co-defendants were already sued by the applicant in Eldoret E&L Originating Summons Cause No. 8 of 2020, providing an alternative forum. Staying these proceedings would be counterproductive and would delay finalization of the case.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action that seriously interferes with a litigant's right to conduct litigation; the test is high and stringent
  • Substantial loss is the cornerstone in applications for stay of proceedings
  • Courts should not be used for parallel processes that may embarrass the court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendant's notice of motion dated 1st December 2020 seeking stay of proceedings pending appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff/respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Good News Church of Africa v Board of Management Eldoret Secondary School [2021] KEELC 3247 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Eldoret E&L Case (suit filed 12th November 2018 - number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3247/eng@2021-04-27

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