Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedOriginating Summons filed 21st October 2020, Nakuru (specific OS number not stated in judgment)· [2022] KEELC 2013 (KLR)

Moto Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd v Peter Chelule & 6 others [2022] KEELC 2013 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 January 2022
2,653 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court halted a land case because a valid appeal existed, confirming an appeal counts as filed once stamped and given a number.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (L. A. Omollo, J) delivered on 24th January 2022 on a Notice of Motion dated 8th November 2021 by the 2nd to 7th Defendants seeking a stay of proceedings in the suit pending the hearing and determination of an appeal against the High Court judgment in Nakuru HCCA No. 95 of 2015 (Rachel Ngetich, J). The underlying suit is an Originating Summons seeking declarations that the Plaintiff is the legal proprietor of land known as GRANT NO. IR 976 LR. NO. 533/87/II, cancellation of titles in the names of the late Simon Njenga Wainaina and the late Joseph Chege Nduguga, eviction or permanent injunction against the occupying Defendants, payment of rents collected since 1995, damages and costs. The applicants argued the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the suit proceeded. The plaintiff opposed, alleging the appeal was a nullity, that the record of appeal bore a doctored date, and that the application was brought two and a half years after judgment. The court framed three issues: whether an appeal was preferred, whether stay was merited, and costs. Calling for the Court of Appeal Nakuru Sub-registry file, the court found Appeal No. 81 of 2021 properly on record, stamped and allocated a number. Applying Global Tours & Travels and related authorities, it held the appeal arguable and the application expeditious, and that hearing a suit intended to give effect to orders under appeal would waste judicial time. The court granted a stay of proceedings and awarded costs to the 2nd to 7th Defendants/Applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of an appeal against Nakuru HCCA No. 95 of 2015

Holding

An appeal properly on record exists, being Court of Appeal Appeal No. 81 of 2021, having been stamped and allocated a number despite pending administrative issues on underpayment of filing fees.

Reasoning

The court called for the Court of Appeal Nakuru Sub-registry file and found the appeal digitised, stamped and allocated number 81 of 2021, with Kshs. 6,000 paid as filing fees. Following the Zhongman Petroleum decision on when a document is deemed lodged, the court held the appeal exists. Non-compliance with filing timelines and its legal effect are matters for the Court of Appeal.

p. 4
02

Whether stay of proceedings pending appeal should be granted

Holding

Stay of proceedings granted because the appeal is arguable, the application was brought expeditiously, and hearing the suit would waste judicial time on orders subject of appeal.

Reasoning

Relying on Global Tours & Travels, Halsbury's Laws, Gotonga, Muchanga Investments and Nurex Zaherali Kurji, the court weighed the interest of justice, the arguability of the appeal, judicial time and expedition. It found the applicants demonstrated an arguable appeal brought expeditiously and that it would be imprudent to hear a suit intended to give effect to orders under appeal.

p. 5
03

Distinction between stay of proceedings and stay of execution

Holding

The application was for stay of proceedings, not stay of execution; the respondent's submissions on substantial loss, delay and security were irrelevant.

Reasoning

The court observed the plaintiff/respondent misconceived the nature of the application and addressed stay of execution criteria. Those matters were expressly excluded from consideration, shifting the focus solely to the criteria for stay of proceedings pending appeal.

p. 3
04

Costs

Holding

Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the successful applicants were awarded costs.

Reasoning

Applying section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Hussein Janmohamed decision, the successful party ordinarily obtains costs unless the court directs otherwise for good reason. No reason to depart from the rule was shown.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A document is deemed lodged when presented, paid for, acknowledged by stamping and allocated a number
  • Stay of proceedings is a discretionary exercise balancing the interest of justice, expeditious disposal, arguability of the appeal and judicial time

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of proceedings in this suit pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal against the High Court judgment in Nakuru HCCA 95 of 2015
  2. 2.Notice of Motion application dated 8th November 2021 allowed
  3. 3.Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd to 7th Defendants/Applicants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(a), (b) and (d)
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21)Sections 63(e), 1A, 1B, 3A and 27
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1

Cases cited (8)

  • Republic Vs Public Procurement and Administrative Review Board Ex-Parte Zhongman Petroleum & Natural Gas Group Company Limited
    [2010] eKLR
  • Global Tours & Travels Limited; Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000
  • David Macharia Gotonga Vs Joyce Wanjiku Macharia
    [2020] eKLR
  • Nazons (Kenya) Ltd Vs China Road and Bridge Corporation Kenya Ltd, Nairobi HCC No. 126 of 1999
  • Muchanga Investment Limited Vs. Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 Others
    Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002 [2009] KLR 229
  • Nurex Zaherali Kurji & 3 others Vs Ameer Kassim Lakha & 9 Others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Hussein Janmohamed & Sons Vs Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd
    [1967] EA 287
  • Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 37
    pages 330 and 332
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(a), (b) and (d) of the Constitution; Sections 63(e), 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moto Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd v Peter Chelule & 6 others [2022] KEELC 2013 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Originating Summons filed 21st October 2020, Nakuru (specific OS number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2013/eng@2022-01-24

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