Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedEnvironment & Land Case 242 of 2017· [2023] KEELC 18114 (KLR)

Zumzum Investment Limited v Ndoro & 14 others (on Behalf of 821 others)

Environment and Land Court
21 June 2023
1,354 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court paused an eviction order affecting over 800 people until their appeal is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (N.A. Matheka, J) on the 12th to 821st Defendants' notice of motion dated December 14, 2022, brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 65 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 42 rule 6(1) and (2), 50 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking a temporary and pending-appeal stay of execution of the judgment delivered on September 27, 2022, which allowed the plaintiff's case and ordered the applicants to vacate the suit property within 180 days. The applicants, who had lodged a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal, argued they had an arguable appeal and stood to suffer irreparable loss if eviction proceeded. The court restated the settled conditions under Order 42 rule 6: substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security. Applying Reliance Bank v Norlake Investments, Chris Munga N Bichange v Richard Nyagaka Tongi, Mohamed Salim v Nasserpuria Memon Jamat and Carter & Sons Ltd v Deposit Protection Fund Board, the court found the application filed on December 14, 2022 following the September 27, 2022 judgment was not inordinately delayed; that eviction of over 800 people and demolition of their houses would cause irreparable loss; and that refusal of stay would render any successful appeal nugatory. The court granted a stay of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, with costs of the application in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6

Holding

The applicants satisfied the conditions: no inordinate delay, substantial loss (over 800 people facing eviction and demolition of houses), and the appeal would be rendered nugatory without stay.

Reasoning

The court applied the settled principles from Order 42 rule 6(1) and the case law: substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security. Judgment was delivered September 27, 2022 and the application filed December 14, 2022, which the court found not to be inordinate delay. The 180-day vacate order meant eviction of over 800 people would cause irreparable loss and render any successful appeal nugatory.

02

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The court was persuaded that if stay were not granted, the success of the appeal, were it to succeed, would be rendered nugatory.

Reasoning

Relying on Reliance Bank v Norlake Investments and Chris Munga N Bichange v Richard Nyagaka Tongi, the court required both limbs - an arguable appeal and that the appeal not be rendered nugatory - to be demonstrated. The court found the applicants had fulfilled the grounds and granted stay of the judgment pending appeal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay pending appeal must demonstrate substantial loss, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and furnish security as ordered by the court.
  • The right of appeal must be balanced against the plaintiff's right to enjoy the fruits of the judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of the judgment delivered in this matter on September 27, 2022 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 65, 95
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1) and (2); Order 50; Order 51

Cases cited (4)

  • Reliance Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Norlake Investments Ltd
    Civil Appl No Nai 93/02 (UR)

    Rule 5(2)(b) principles: arguable appeal and appeal not rendered nugatory

  • Chris Munga N Bichange v Richard Nyagaka Tongi & 2 Others
    eKLR

    Two limbs for stay applications: arguable appeal and nugatory test; both must be demonstrated

  • Mohamed Salim T/A Choice Butchery v Nasserpuria Memon Jamat
    [2013] eKLR

    Balancing right of appeal against plaintiff's right to enjoy fruits of judgment

  • Carter & Sons Ltd v Deposit Protection Fund Board & 2 Others
    Civil Appeal No 291 of 1997

    Sufficient cause, substantial loss, security and no unreasonable delay for stay

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 65 and 95 Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2), Order 50 and Order 51 Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Zumzum Investment Limited v Ndoro & 14 others (on Behalf of 821 others)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 242 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18114/eng@2023-06-21

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