Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in extract (Notice of Motion dated 26th August 2021)· [2022] KEELC 1569 (KLR)

Douglas Oribu Matoke v William Sagini Oribu [2022] KEELC 1569 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
10 February 2022
1,991 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Following the dismissal of the Plaintiff's suit on 29th July 2021 (in which he had sought an order compelling the Defendant to transfer a portion of land measuring 70ft by 120ft comprised in parcels WANJARE/BOGIAKUMU/2004 and 6245), the Applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Kisii by Notice of Motion dated 26th August 2021 seeking a temporary injunction restraining demolition of a structure on the suit property and a stay of execution of the decree pending an intended appeal. He contended that the appeal would be rendered nugatory and that he would suffer substantial loss; the Respondent opposed, arguing there was nothing to stay and that the court was functus officio. The court framed two issues: entitlement to an injunction and to a stay. On the injunction, the court held under Order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules that having delivered judgment it could grant an injunction only pending an appeal to itself from a subordinate court; since the appeal lay to the Court of Appeal, it had no jurisdiction and was functus officio. On the stay, relying on Co-operative Bank Ltd v BIFU and Executive Estates Ltd v Kenya Posts, the court held that an order dismissing a suit is a negative order incapable of execution and thus cannot be stayed. Further, the injunction issue was not the subject of the appeal, and stay can only issue against the order appealed against. Even assuming the order could be stayed, the Applicant failed to meet the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions: he did not expound the alleged substantial loss and offered no security, although the application was filed within a month. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could grant a temporary injunction pending an appeal filed in the Court of Appeal

Holding

No - the court lacks jurisdiction because the appeal is to the Court of Appeal, not to this court; the court is functus officio

Reasoning

Order 42 rule 6(6) permits the High Court to grant a temporary injunction in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction where an appeal from a subordinate court has been instituted. Here the Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, so the ELC had no jurisdiction and, having delivered judgment, was functus officio.

p. 2
02

Whether an order dismissing a suit can be stayed

Holding

No - it is a negative order incapable of execution, so no stay lies

Reasoning

Relying on Co-operative Bank Ltd v BIFU Kenya and Executive Estates Ltd v Kenya Posts, stay of execution presupposes a positive order imposing obligations to be delayed. A dismissal orders no party to do anything or pay any sum, so there is nothing to stay.

p. 2
03

Whether the Applicant satisfied the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions for stay

Holding

No - substantial loss was not expounded, and no security was offered, though the application was filed within a month

Reasoning

All three conditions under Order 42 Rule 6 must be met simultaneously. The Applicant merely alleged substantial loss without expounding on the nature of the loss, and offered no security for costs. In any event, the injunction issue was not the subject of the appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A negative order, such as an order dismissing a suit, is incapable of execution and cannot be stayed
  • Where judgment has been delivered, a court can only grant an injunction pending an appeal to itself from a subordinate court, not an appeal in a superior court
  • Stay of execution pending appeal can only be granted against the order being appealed against

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(2)(a) and (b)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(6)

Cases cited (11)

  • National Bank Ltd v Jivraj Raishi and Brothers Ltd & Others
    Kisumu Civil Application No. 153 of 2002
  • East African Excavation Co. Limited v Nutech System & Trading Co. Ltd
    (2021) eKLR
  • Milcah Jeruto T/A Milcah Faith Enterprises v Fina Bank Limited & Another
  • Ndungu Kinyanjui vs Kibichoi Kugeria Services & Another
    Civil Application No NAI 79 of 2007 (unreported)
  • Co-operative Bank Limited vs Banking Insurance & Finance Union Kenya
    Nairobi Application No. 133 of 2017
  • Executive Estates Limited vs. Kenya Posts & Anor.
    [2005] 1 E.A. 53
  • M.O.M Amin Transporters Limited & Another v Alexander Ndung'u Mbugua & 2 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Kiplagat Kotut vs Rose Jebor Kipngok
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs Sun City Properties Limited & 5 Others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Kenya Shell Limited vs Kibiru
  • Equity Bank Limited v Taiga Adams Company Limited
    [2006] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules; ELC's power to grant stay of execution of its own decree

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Douglas Oribu Matoke v William Sagini Oribu [2022] KEELC 1569 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in extract (Notice of Motion dated 26th August 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1569/eng@2022-02-10

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