Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the extract (application dated 16th September, 2022 arising from Meru CMC ELC No. 032 of 2020)· [2023] KEELC 56 (KLR)

Regina Mugure & another v Stephen Mwenda M'Marete & 4 others

Environment and Land Court
18 January 2023
4,130 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court blocked the sale of disputed land pending appeal, but only after the appellants deposited Kshs. 1 million as security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Meru (C.K Yano, ELC Judge) on a notice of motion dated 16th September 2022 by Regina Mugure and Stephen Mwenda Mugambi, appellants in an appeal against the judgment of the trial court delivered on 5th September 2022 dismissing their suit in Meru CMC ELC No. 032 of 2020. The appellants alleged that the 1st respondent fraudulently subdivided and transferred land from the estate of the 1st appellant's late husband (Meru/Ngusishi/466), transferring portions to the 2nd respondent and charging Ngusishi Settlement Scheme/1219 to Family Bank Limited to secure an unserviced loan of Kshs. 3,100,000. They sought orders barring the 2nd and 3rd respondents from selling or interfering with Ngusishi Settlement Scheme/1218 and /1219 and a stay of proceedings in Meru CM ELC No. 5 of 2019. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed grounds of opposition; the 3rd respondent opposed through a replying affidavit alleging concealment, limitation under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, and want of merit. The court framed the sole issue as whether the applicants met the criteria for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6. It found no delay (application filed eleven days after judgment), found substantial loss in that eviction and sale would render the appeal nugatory, and imposed security of Kshs. 1,000,000 to be deposited within thirty days in default of which the stay would lapse. The prayer for stay of proceedings in the subordinate court was declined. Costs were to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there was unreasonable delay in filing the application for stay

Holding

There was no delay; the application filed on 16th September 2022 followed a judgment delivered on 5th September 2022

Reasoning

The court applied the first criterion under Order 42 Rule 6, comparing the date of the trial judgment (5th September 2022) with the filing date of the application (16th September 2022), an interval of eleven days, and found that the application was brought without unreasonable delay, satisfying that limb of the test.

p. 7
02

Whether the applicants demonstrated substantial loss

Holding

Eviction and sale of the suit land would render the appeal nugatory and cause substantial loss

Reasoning

The applicants deposed that failure to grant stay would expose them to eviction and expose the suit property to sale by the 1st and 3rd respondents. Applying Silverstein v Chesoni, the court held that if the applicants were evicted and the land sold, the appeal would be rendered nugatory and the applicants would suffer substantial loss, satisfying the second criterion.

p. 8
03

Whether security for the due performance of the decree was required

Holding

The court conditioned the stay on the deposit of Kshs. 1,000,000 as security within thirty days, failing which the stay lapses

Reasoning

Although the applicants had not addressed security, the court held it has power to order security. Considering the facts, it directed deposit of Kshs. 1,000,000 into an interest-earning account in the joint names of the advocates, within thirty days, with automatic lapse of the stay orders upon default, balancing the appellants' right of appeal against the successful litigant's right to the fruits of the judgment.

p. 8
04

Whether proceedings in Meru CM ELC No. 5 of 2019 should be stayed

Holding

Stay of proceedings declined as the applicants did not meet the test

Reasoning

The court characterized stay of proceedings as a grave judicial action that impedes access to justice and fair trial rights, grantable sparingly and exceptionally. It was not satisfied that proper reasons existed, noting the order would further delay proceedings in the subordinate court, and therefore declined the prayer for stay of proceedings.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate substantial loss, that the application was made without undue delay, and must furnish security for the due performance of the decree
  • Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the 2nd and 3rd respondents are barred from selling, advertising for sale or in any other manner interfering with the parcels of land known as Ngusishi Settlement Scheme/1218 and Ngusishi Settlement Scheme/1219 pending hearing and determination of the applicant's appeal
  2. 2.That the applicants/appellants shall furnish security of Kshs. 1,000,000/= for performance of the decree in Meru CMC ELC No. 031/032 of 2020, to be deposited in an interest earning account in the joint names of the appellants and the advocates for the 2nd and 3rd respondents within thirty (30) days
  3. 3.That in the event of failure to comply with the security order, the order restraining sale shall stand vacated

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 162(2)(b)
  • Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011Sections 3, 11, 13, 18 and 19
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1) and 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 1B (overriding objective)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 7

Cases cited (6)

  • Kennedy Otieno Diyo and 12 others Vs. Kenya Electricity Generating Company Limited
    (2010) eKLR
  • Gulf Timber & Hardware Supplies Limited s Mungai Nguraiya & others
    (2022) KECA 87 (KLR)
  • Butt Vs Rent Restriction Tribunal
    (1982) KLR 417
  • RWW VS EKW
    (2019) eKLR
  • Victory Construction V BM (a minor suing through next friend one PMM
    (2019) eKLR
  • Silverstein V Chesoni
    (2002) 1 KLR 867
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land), Meru
Meru CMC ELC No. 032 of 2020 (also referenced as Meru MCELC No. 5 of 2019 relating to the same subject matter)
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 159(2)(d) and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Sections 3, 11, 13, 18 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011; Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Regina Mugure & another v Stephen Mwenda M'Marete & 4 others", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the extract (application dated 16th September, 2022 arising from Meru CMC ELC No. 032 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/56/eng@2023-01-18

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