Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedMakueni ELC Case No 8 of 2020 (Notice of Motion dated March 31, 2021)· [2022] KEELC 3434 (KLR)

Mutusi & 15 others v Stanley & Sons Limited & another; County Government of Makueni & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 8 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 3434 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 July 2022
3,630 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Makueni refused to pause a land case because the applicants could not show a real, arguable appeal had even been filed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Makueni (T. Murigi J) on a Notice of Motion dated March 31, 2021 by the Plaintiffs/Applicants seeking a stay of proceedings in ELC Case No 8 of 2020 pending an intended appeal against directions issued on March 2, 2021, by which the Court compromised ELC Petition No 5 of 2018 in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of that Petition and marked it withdrawn. The Applicants, through counsel Alfred Nyandieka, argued they had a prima facie arguable appeal, filed the application expeditiously, and would suffer prejudice and render the appeal nugatory if the suit proceeded. The 1st Defendant/Respondent (Robin Alan Stanley) opposed, contending the applicants failed to show any connection between the two matters or any prejudice, and held an indefeasible title. The application was canvassed by written submissions. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicants had made out a case for stay of proceedings pending the intended appeal. Applying the three-pronged test (prima facie arguable case, expeditious filing, sufficient cause) drawn from Order 42 Rule 6 and authorities including Re Global Tours & Travel Ltd and Bivac International SA, the court found the application was filed timeously but that the applicants had not established an arguable appeal (no appeal or grounds of appeal exhibited) nor sufficient cause or substantial loss, since the pleadings and issues in the two matters were distinct. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants established a prima facie arguable case

Holding

No prima facie arguable appeal was established because no appeal or grounds of appeal had been filed

Reasoning

The applicants intended to appeal the March 2, 2021 directions and attached a notice of appeal, but produced no evidence that an appeal had been filed, and the court had not seen the grounds of appeal, making it impossible to assess arguability.

p. 7
02

Whether sufficient cause/substantial loss was shown

Holding

No sufficient cause or substantial loss was demonstrated

Reasoning

The pleadings, facts and issues in the present suit are distinct from those in ELC Petition No 5 of 2018; no correlation was pointed out, no adverse orders issued in these proceedings, and the applicants could not show what injustice would follow if the suit proceeded to hearing.

p. 8
03

Whether the application was filed expeditiously

Holding

The application was filed without delay

Reasoning

Directions were issued on March 2, 2021 and the application was filed on March 11, 2021, so the expeditious-filing principle was satisfied, though this alone could not save the application.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of proceedings pending appeal is a discretionary power exercised judiciously and only in exceptional circumstances, guided by the principles of a prima facie arguable case, expeditious filing and sufficient cause
  • A stay of proceedings is a serious interruption of a party's right to litigate and should be imposed sparingly

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated March 31, 2021 is dismissed with costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mutusi & 15 others v Stanley & Sons Limited & another; County Government of Makueni & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 8 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 3434 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Makueni ELC Case No 8 of 2020 (Notice of Motion dated March 31, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3434/eng@2022-07-27

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