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 264 of 2017 (Formerly Nakuru HCC No. 28 of 2010)· [2023] KEELC 16899 (KLR)

Saoli (Suing on his own behalf and as an Administrator of the Estate of Leposo Ole Saoli) & 2 others v Saoli

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
25 April 2023
2,308 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 land court refused to pause a 13-year-old family land dispute, ruling that appeals cannot be used to delay justice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Narok (Mbogo, J) determined a notice of motion dated 17th February 2023 by the defendant, Soitara Ole Saoli, seeking a stay of further proceedings in the suit pending hearing and determination of an intended appeal against the court's ruling of 7th February 2023. The application was brought under Articles 48, 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, the Civil Procedure Act, the Environment and Land Court Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant argued the application was filed timeously, that the intended appeal was arguable and went to the root of the proceedings, and that proceeding without a stay would render the appeal nugatory and waste judicial time. The 1st respondent opposed, contending the application was frivolous, a rehash of matters already decided, that filing a notice of appeal is not a ground for stay, and that no draft memorandum of appeal had been attached. The court identified a single issue: whether to stay further proceedings pending the intended appeal. Relying on Order 42 rule 6(1) and authorities including Re Global Tours & Travel, PKM v RPM, Kenya Wildlife Service v Mutembei and Christopher Ndolo Mutuku v CFC Stanbic Bank, the court held that stay of proceedings is discretionary, that the test is high and stringent, and that the applicant's failure to attach a draft memorandum of appeal prevented any assessment of arguability; grounds of appeal outlined only in submissions were unprocedural. Noting the suit had been pending since 2010 and that the issues raised had been dealt with in earlier rulings, the court found the application a delaying tactic, dismissed it, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and fixed the matter for mention on 3rd May 2023 for a defence hearing date.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of proceedings pending appeal should be granted

Holding

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to attach a draft memorandum of appeal, making it impossible to assess arguability, and the application appeared to be a delaying tactic in a suit pending since 2010

Reasoning

The court's jurisdiction to stay proceedings derives from Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and is discretionary, to be exercised in the interest of justice. The applicant bore the burden of showing an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay. Without a draft memorandum of appeal, the court could not comment on arguability; grounds of appeal outlined only in written submissions were held unprocedural. The court also found the application timeous but seemingly a delaying tactic, since the same issues had been dealt with in earlier rulings of 5th July 2022 and 7th February 2023.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action that interferes with a litigant's right to conduct litigation; the test for stay of proceedings is high and stringent, unlike stay of execution
  • The right of appeal cannot be exercised at the expense of justice; proceedings should not be hindered without just and sufficient cause
  • An arguable appeal does not mean an appeal which would ultimately succeed; the applicant need only show grounds raising a serious question of fact or law

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated 17th February, 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs
  3. 3.The matter is fixed for mention on 3rd May, 2023 for parties to fix a date for defence hearing
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 48, 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 3 and 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Saoli (Suing on his own behalf and as an Administrator of the Estate of Leposo Ole Saoli) & 2 others v Saoli", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 264 of 2017 (Formerly Nakuru HCC No. 28 of 2010). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16899/eng@2023-04-25

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