Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 21st January 2021· [2021] KEELC 3682 (KLR)

Charles Zablon Mwaniki v Jacob Neyole & 4 others [2021] KEELC 3682 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 April 2021
908 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court stopped the enforcement of a land judgment pending appeal, but only because the applicant backed up claims of harm with real evidence and offered security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (L. Komingoi J) determines a Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2021 by the 3rd defendant/applicant, Gladys Kamsa, seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 10th December 2020 pending an intended appeal, under Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The application was supported by her affidavit and opposed by the plaintiff/respondent through grounds of opposition, which argued the application was an abuse of process since the applicants ought to have moved the Court of Appeal. The court framed two issues: whether the application met the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal, and costs. Applying Order 42 rule 6(2), the court found the application was brought without undue delay. Relying on Samvir Trustee Ltd v Guardian Bank, it accepted that substantial loss (risk of eviction from the suit property) had been demonstrated with supporting evidence, and adopted the principles in Musisi Mwita v Damaris Wanjiku Njeri, Halal & Another v Thorntion & Turpin Ltd and Hassan Guyo Wakolo v Stratmen EA Ltd, including the requirement to show the appeal would be rendered nugatory. Finding merit, the court granted a stay of execution of the decree pending the intended appeal, conditional on the defendants/applicants depositing Kshs. 500,000 as security for costs within thirty days, failing which the stay would lapse. Costs of the application were awarded to the defendants/applicants themselves to bear.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal satisfies the conditions in Order 42 rule 6(2)

Holding

The court found the application was brought without undue delay, that substantial loss was demonstrated, and granted stay conditional on a deposit of Kshs. 500,000 as security

Reasoning

The court applied Order 42 rule 6(2), requiring satisfaction that substantial loss may result, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security be given. Relying on Samvir Trustee Ltd v Guardian Bank, it held that substantial loss must be supported by empirical or documentary evidence, and adopting the twin principles from Musisi Mwita v Damaris Wanjiku Njeri, it found the applicants had made out a good case and conditioned the stay on a security deposit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate substantial loss with empirical or documentary evidence, not mere allegations

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order for stay of execution of the decree emanating from the judgment delivered on 10th December 2020 granted pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, on condition that the defendants/applicants deposit Kshs. 500,000 as security for costs within thirty (30) days, in default the orders of stay shall lapse
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the defendants/applicants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 rule 6(1), (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Reg Noil Kenya Limited vs Winfred Njeri Karanja
    [2019] eKLR
  • Paul Kamura Kirunge vs John Peter Nganga
    [2019] eKLR
  • Samvir Trustee Ltd vs Guardian Bank
    [2007] eKLR
  • Musisi Mwita vs Damaris Wanjiku Njeri
    [2016] eKLR
  • Halal & Another vs Thorntion & Turpin Ltd
  • Hassan Guyo Wakolo vs Stratmen EA Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Charles Zablon Mwaniki v Jacob Neyole & 4 others [2021] KEELC 3682 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 21st January 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3682/eng@2021-04-15

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