Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment and Land Appeal 18 of 2020· [2023] KEELC 15724 (KLR)

Kembe v Sule

Environment and Land Court
23 February 2023
1,737 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to pause a lost land appeal, ruling that a dismissal cannot be stayed and injunctions pending further appeal belong in the Court of Appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu (S O Okong'o, J) determines the appellant's notice of motion dated August 1, 2022 seeking a stay of execution of the court's judgment of January 31, 2022 - which had dismissed his appeal against a Kisumu Chief Magistrate's Court decree declaring the respondent owner of Kisumu/Kasule/5649 - and a temporary injunction pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondent's bill of costs had been taxed at Kshs 266,975/-. On the stay limb, the court applied Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman v Keshavji Jivraj Shah and Raymond M Omboga v Austine Pyan Maranga, holding that a judgment merely dismissing an appeal is a negative order incapable of execution save for costs. Under Order 42 rule 6(2), the appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss: he did not explain what loss he would suffer if recovery of costs was not stayed, nor that the respondent could not refund the costs if the appeal succeeded. On the injunction limb, the court held that Order 42 rule 6(6) empowers the court to grant a temporary injunction only pending an appeal before itself, not pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal; assessing the arguability of an appeal against its own decision is a matter for the Court of Appeal alone. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution of a dismissing judgment can be granted

Holding

No; a judgment that merely dismisses an appeal is a negative order incapable of execution except for costs, and stay of the costs was not justified absent evidence of substantial loss.

Reasoning

Relying on Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman v Keshavji Jivraj Shah and Raymond M Omboga v Austine Pyan Maranga, the court held that a dismissal contains no positive order capable of execution apart from costs. Under Order 42 rule 6(2), the appellant had to show substantial loss and offer security; he neither explained the loss he would suffer from paying the taxed costs nor suggested the respondent could not refund them if the appeal succeeded.

p. 2
02

Whether the ELC can grant an injunction pending appeal to the Court of Appeal

Holding

No; Order 42 rule 6(6) empowers the court to grant an injunction only pending an appeal before itself, not pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Reasoning

The court held that granting an injunction pending an appeal against its own decision would require it to assess whether that appeal is arguable, an inquiry reserved to the Court of Appeal. Having dismissed the appeal, the ELC cannot pronounce on the arguability of an appeal from its own judgment; the application for such an injunction lies in the Court of Appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A dismissal of an appeal is a negative order incapable of execution save for costs, and cannot be stayed.
  • Substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction to grant stay of execution.
  • A first-instance appellate court cannot grant an injunction pending appeal to the Court of Appeal; only the Court of Appeal can determine whether an appeal against its own decision is arguable.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appellant's notice of motion dated August 1, 2022 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6(1), 6(2), 6(6)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XLI rule 4 (as cited in Kenya Shell Limited v Karuga)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman v Keshavji Jivraj Shah
    [2008] eKLR

    A dismissing order is a negative order incapable of execution save for costs.

  • Raymond M Omboga v Austine Pyan Maranga
    Kisii HCCA No 15 of 2010

    A dismissal is a negative order incapable of stay where there is no positive order capable of execution.

  • Kenya Shell Limited v Karuga
    (1982 – 1988) I KAR 1018

    Substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction to grant stay; without it, stay should rarely issue.

On appeal from
Kisumu Chief Magistrate's Court
ELC No 36 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; application brought under Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kembe v Sule", Case Analysis (2023). Environment and Land Appeal 18 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/15724/eng@2023-02-23

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