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 judgment (notice of motion dated November 18, 2021)· [2023] KEELC 578 (KLR)

Njihia & 36 others v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society & another (Environment & Land Case 25 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 578 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 February 2023
1,460 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to pause a judgment because a case dismissal orders nothing — there is nothing to 'execute' except costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs/applicants moved the court by notice of motion dated November 18, 2021, seeking a stay of execution of the judgment and decree issued on October 12, 2021, both pending the inter-partes hearing of the application and pending their intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application was supported by the affidavit of the 1st plaintiff, Anthony Mbugua Njihia, who asserted that the appeal had a high chance of success and that the 2nd defendant, a bank, was in the process of attaching and selling the suit property, exposing the applicants to substantial loss and eviction. The 2nd defendant/respondent opposed the application through a replying affidavit and submissions, arguing that the judgment merely dismissed the suit and discharged interim orders, constituting a negative order incapable of execution save as to costs, that only a notice of appeal had been filed, and that stay would curtail the bank's statutory power of sale. The applicants filed no written submissions despite several chances. The court, L. Gacheru J, framed one issue: whether the stay application was merited. Applying Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held the conditions were couched in mandatory terms and that the applicants had demonstrated no substantial loss since the judgment of October 12, 2021 merely dismissed the suit; neither party was ordered to do or refrain from anything. Following the Court of Appeal in Ndungu Kinyanjui v Kibichoi Kugeria Services and David Thiong'o, the court found the judgment to be a negative order incapable of execution except as to costs. The application was dismissed entirely with costs to the 2nd defendant/respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution can issue against a judgment dismissing a suit (a negative order)

Holding

No - the dismissal of the plaintiff's case was a negative order incapable of execution save in respect of costs; the applicants failed to show substantial loss

Reasoning

Under Order 42 rule 6(2), stay requires demonstration of substantial loss and offer of security, in mandatory terms. Since the judgment of October 12, 2021 merely dismissed the suit and discharged interim orders, neither party was ordered to do or refrain from anything, and no decree capable of execution exists except as to costs. Relying on Court of Appeal authority, nothing arises from the decision to enforce or restrain, so stay cannot issue.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicants demonstrated substantial loss and filed a proper appeal

Holding

Applicants failed to satisfy the first requirement for stay; only a notice of appeal, not an actual appeal, had been filed

Reasoning

The applicants did not show the kind of loss they would suffer as no party was ordered to do anything to the disadvantage of the other. They also did not file written submissions despite several chances. The 2nd respondent argued, unrebutted, that a notice of appeal without grounds cannot constitute an actual appeal capable of evaluation for prospects of success.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A judgment that dismisses a suit without ordering any party to do or refrain from doing anything, or to pay any sum, is a negative order incapable of execution save in respect of costs, and no stay of execution can issue in respect of it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated November 18, 2021, is dismissed entirely
  2. 2.Costs to the 2nd defendant/respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6(2) and (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya)
    (2015), eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd v Tamarind Meadows Ltd & 7 others
    (2016)
  • Ndungu Kinyanjui v Kibichoi Kugeria Services & another
    [2007] eKLR
  • David Thiong'o T/A Welcome General Stores v Market Fancy Emporium
    [2007] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njihia & 36 others v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society & another (Environment & Land Case 25 of 2019) [2023] KEELC 578 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in judgment (notice of motion dated November 18, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/578/eng@2023-02-09

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