Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 30th October 2020 (Civil Appeal No. E444 of 2020 pending at the Court of Appeal)· [2021] KEELC 4043 (KLR)

Margaret Nduta Kamithi & another v Annuciata Waithira Kibue & 2 others [2021] KEELC 4043 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya, Environment and Land Court
11 March 2021
1,746 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court paused enforcement of a land judgment until an appeal is heard, but only after the losing party deposited Kshs.1 million as security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendants/applicants moved the court by notice of motion dated 30th October 2020 under Order 42 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 30th September 2020 and the decree issued on 27th October 2020, pending the hearing and determination of their appeal, Civil Appeal No. E444 of 2020, at the Court of Appeal. The application was supported by the affidavit of the 1st defendant, Annunciata Waithira Kibue, and opposed by a replying affidavit of the 1st plaintiff, Margaret Nduta Kamithi, together with grounds of opposition. The application was canvassed by written submissions pursuant to a consent of 19th November 2020. The plaintiffs argued the application was fatally defective for non-compliance with section 23(2A) of the Advocates Act and Order 51 rule 13(2); that the court was functus officio; and that the application was premature and unmeritorious, the subject matter being immovable property that would remain available regardless of the appeal. The court framed two issues: whether the applicants met the Order 42 rule 6(2) threshold, and costs. It found the application filed without undue delay and, relying on James Wangalwa and Samvir Trustee, held that substantial loss had been demonstrated. It dismissed the defect point under Article 159(2) of the Constitution, finding the omission insignificant. The court granted stay of execution pending appeal, conditioned on the deposit of Kshs.1,000,000/- as security in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days, in default of which the stay lapses, and awarded costs of the application to the defendants to bear.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants satisfied the Order 42 rule 6(2) conditions for stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

The court found the application was filed without undue delay and that the applicants demonstrated substantial loss, warranting a stay conditioned on the deposit of security

Reasoning

The court applied the three conjunctive conditions in Order 42 rule 6(2): substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security. It found the notice of appeal was filed within days of judgment and the application followed promptly, and accepted the applicants' evidence that effecting transfers of the suit plots would irreparably affect the core of the appeal. Relying on James Wangalwa and Samvir Trustee, it held that the applicants had shown a real risk rendering the appeal nugatory, and granted the stay conditioned on a Kshs.1,000,000/- security deposit.

p. 3
02

Whether failure to comply with section 23(2A) of the Advocates Act and Order 51 rule 13(2) rendered the application fatally defective

Holding

No; the omission was insignificant and did not affect the substance of the application

Reasoning

The plaintiffs/respondents argued the application was defective because the applicants' advocates failed to comply with section 23(2A) of the Advocates Act and Order 51 rule 13(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court invoked Article 159(2) of the Constitution, holding that justice must be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities, and found the omission so insignificant that it did not affect the substance of the application.

p. 3
03

Whether the court, having delivered judgment, was functus officio and unable to grant stay

Holding

The court rejected this as a bar and proceeded to determine the stay application

Reasoning

The plaintiffs/respondents contended that having delivered judgment on 30th September 2020 the court was functus officio, citing Telkom Kenya Ltd v John Ochanda. The court did not adopt that reasoning; it addressed the stay application on its merits under Order 42 rule 6, which expressly contemplates the court that pronounced the decree granting stay pending appeal, and granted the orders sought subject to security.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Under Order 42 rule 6(2), no stay of execution pending appeal shall be granted unless substantial loss is shown, the application is made without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree is given
  • Substantial loss must be supported by evidence, not mere assertion
  • Under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, minor procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order for stay of execution of the decree emanating from the judgment delivered on 30th September 2020, granted pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
  2. 2.The stay granted on condition that the defendants/applicants deposit Kshs.1,000,000/- as security for costs in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendants' counsel within forty-five (45) days, in default the stay shall lapse
  3. 3.The costs of the application to be borne by the defendants/applicants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 rule 6; Order 42 rule 6(2); Order 51 rule 1; Order 51 rule 13(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 63Sections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Advocates Act, Cap 16Section 23(2A)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)

Cases cited (13)

  • Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1979] eKLR
  • Consolidated Marine vs Nampijja & Another
    Civil App. No 93 of 1989 (Nairobi)
  • Masisi Mwita vs Damaris Wanjiku Njeri
    (2016) eKLR
  • HGE vs SM
    [2020] eKLR
  • James Wangalwa & Another vs Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    Bungoma HC Misc. Application No 42 of 2011; [2012] eKLR
  • John Odongo vs Joyce Irungu Muhatia
    [2019] eKLR
  • Nairobi Women's Hospital vs Purity Kemunto
    [2018] eKLR
  • Telkom Kenya Limited vs John Ochanda (suing on his own behalf and on behalf of 996 Former Employees of Telkom Kenya Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Okiya Omutata Okoiti vs Communication Authority of Kenya & 8 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Samvir Trustee Limited vs Guardian Bank Limited
    [2007] eKLR
  • Victory Construction vs B M (a minor suing through next fried one PMM)
    [2019] eKLR
  • Star Transport Co. Ltd vs Ali Mwinyi Mvita
    [2016] eKLR
  • Elizabeth Jerono Yator vs Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited & Another
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (2010); Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 63

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Margaret Nduta Kamithi & another v Annuciata Waithira Kibue & 2 others [2021] KEELC 4043 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2020 (Civil Appeal No. E444 of 2020 pending at the Court of Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4043/eng@2021-03-11

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