Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment & Land Case 4A of 2020· [2023] KEELC 17284 (KLR)

East Africa Ventor Co Ltd v Agricultural Finance Corporation & another

Environment and Land Court
4 May 2023
YAY M Angima
1,177 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to pause a judgment dismissing a company's land case, confirming that dismissals cannot be stayed and missed appeal deadlines are fatal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu (Y M Angima, J) determined the plaintiff's notice of motion dated June 28, 2022, brought under Order 42 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, seeking a stay of execution of the decree of June 9, 2022, which had dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking to restrain the Agricultural Finance Corporation from exercising its statutory power of sale over two suit properties. Although the motion on its face sought a stay pending hearing of the application, the court read it as seeking a stay pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The defendants filed no response, and only the plaintiff filed submissions. The court framed a single issue: whether the plaintiff had made out a case for stay of execution pending appeal. Applying Western College of Arts & Applied Sciences v Orange and its later application in Marangu Rucha and Peter Kamondia Njuguna, the court held that a dismissal order refusing the relief sought is not capable of being stayed, as there is nothing to execute apart from costs; the plaintiff had also not sought an interim injunction pending appeal. Additionally, the plaintiff's notice of appeal was filed out of the 14-day period without leave, and its new advocates had not regularized their appearance under Order 9 rule 9 despite being given 21 days to do so. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs, the application being unopposed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a dismissal order can be stayed under Order 42 rule 6(2)

Holding

No - where a suit is simply dismissed with nothing to execute except costs, there is nothing for a stay to enforce or restrain

Reasoning

The court applied Western College of Arts & Applied Sciences v Orange, holding that where the High Court has merely dismissed a suit and ordered no party to do, refrain from doing, or pay anything, there is nothing arising from the judgment capable of being stayed. The plaintiff also did not seek an interim injunction pending appeal.

p. 2
02

Compliance with Order 42 rule 6(4) on lodging the appeal

Holding

The plaintiff failed to lodge the notice of appeal within 14 days and obtained no leave to lodge it out of time

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered on June 9, 2022, so the notice of appeal was due by about June 23, 2022. The notice on record was dated June 30, 2022, stamped July 15, 2022 and paid for on September 26, 2022, with no indication of leave to lodge it out of time, undermining the stay application.

p. 3
03

Whether the plaintiff's new advocates were properly on record

Holding

Doubtful - no compliance with Order 9 rule 9 on change of advocates after judgment

Reasoning

The new firm, M/S Maina & Maina Advocates, was given 21 days to regularize its appearance after the issue was raised, but took no steps to comply by the time of the ruling, casting further doubt on the propriety of the application.

Legal principles established

#
  • A dismissal order or an order refusing the relief sought is not capable of being stayed under Order 42 rule 6(2)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's notice of motion dated June 28, 2022 is hereby dismissed.
  2. 2.There shall be no order as to costs since the application was not opposed by the Defendants.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 rule 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 rule 6(4)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 9 rule 9

Cases cited (3)

  • Western College of Arts & Applied Sciences vs Orange & Others
    [1976] KLR 63

    A dismissal order with nothing to execute is not capable of being stayed

  • Marangu Rucha & Another vs Attorney General & 10 Others
    [2014] eKLR

    Applied Western College; dismissal orders not stayable

  • Peter Kamondia Njuguna vs Paul Ng'ang'a Gachie
    [2015] eKLR

    Applied Western College; dismissal orders not stayable

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (6)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "East Africa Ventor Co Ltd v Agricultural Finance Corporation & another", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 4A of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/17284/eng@2023-05-04

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