Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment & Land Case 111 of 2016· [2023] KEELC 16075 (KLR)

Makokha & another v Okello & another

Environment and Land Court
23 February 2023
2,169 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to stay its own dismissal of a land case, confirming that negative orders cannot be stayed and injunctions pending appeal must come from the appellate court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, who lost their adverse-possession claim over parcels Bukhayo/Buyofu/1415 and 1416 in a judgment delivered by Omollo J on 27 September 2022, moved this court by Notice of Motion dated 24 November 2022 under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking stay of execution pending appeal and a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from subdividing, alienating or transferring the suit land or evicting them pending the intended appeal. The 1st respondent opposed, arguing the applicants sought to deny the respondents the fruits of the judgment, that there was inordinate delay, and that the threshold for the orders sought had not been met. Olao J held that the judgment sought to be appealed was a negative order merely dismissing the suit with costs - no counter-claim having been filed - and that such an order is incapable of being stayed, following Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v Oranga and Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman v Keshavji Jivraj Shah; the applicants also failed to demonstrate substantial loss or offer security. On the injunction, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant an injunction pending an appeal from its own final judgment: Order 42 Rule 6(6) vests that power in an appellate court, and the court, being functus officio, could not sit in appeal over its own judgment or that of a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Stay of execution of a negative order

Holding

Stay of execution is unavailable where the judgment merely dismissed the suit; only costs could be executed

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6 requires an order capable of execution. The judgment of Omollo J dismissed the claim without counter-claim and issued no positive orders. Following Western College and Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman, a negative order dismissing a suit is not amenable to stay, and the applicants also failed to show substantial loss or offer security.

p. 3
02

Temporary injunction pending appeal from the same court

Holding

The trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction pending an appeal from its own final judgment; such power belongs to the appellate court under Order 42 Rule 6(6)

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6(6) permits temporary injunctions only in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The court is functus officio after final judgment and cannot sit on appeal over its own decision or that of a court of concurrent jurisdiction; injunctions under Order 40 Rule 1 also require a pending suit, which no longer exists.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A negative order dismissing a suit is incapable of being stayed pending appeal
  • A trial court cannot grant a temporary injunction pending an appeal from its own final judgment; that power lies with the appellate court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated November 24, 2022 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1) and (2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(6)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 3A
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 99
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (3)

  • Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v Oranga & others
    1976 – KLR 163

    A negative order dismissing a suit with costs is not amenable to stay of execution.

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

    A negative order incapable of execution save in respect of costs cannot be stayed.

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    [1973] EA 358

    Prima facie case with probability of success as a condition for temporary injunction.

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (application by the losing plaintiffs before this same court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Makokha & another v Okello & another", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 111 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16075/eng@2023-02-23

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