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 Miscellaneous Case 23 of 2020 & Environment & Land Case 13 of 2019 (Consolidated)· [2023] KEELC 18525 (KLR)

Tormoi & another v Koech (Sued in his Capacity as the Trustee and Executor of the Estate of Kipngeno Arap Ngeny) & 3 others

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
6 July 2023
2,883 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court at Kericho refused to pause a land case pending appeal because the applicants delayed ten months and never showed their appeal had merit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kericho (M.C. Oundo, J) determined an application dated March 23, 2022 by the 1st and 2nd defendants/applicants seeking stay of execution of, and directions arising from, the court's ruling of May 13, 2021, and a stay of proceedings, pending an intended appeal. The impugned ruling had dismissed the applicants' application to set aside ex-parte orders and directed compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 21 days. The respondents opposed, contending the application was an indolent delay tactic: it was filed ten months after the ruling, one day outside a court ultimatum, without evidence of substantial loss, and without any offer of security. The court, applying the Global Tours & Travels criteria and the stringent test for stay of proceedings from Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei, found the applicants had not demonstrated an arguable appeal - no memorandum of appeal was annexed and no evidence of applying for or paying for proceedings was produced - nor had they moved expeditiously, despite a notice of appeal filed on May 25, 2021. Although the application was filed one day out of time, the court deemed it properly on record under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents, with the overriding objective of expeditious and proportionate justice under Article 159(2) of the Constitution and sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act informing the outcome.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants demonstrated an arguable appeal to warrant stay of proceedings

Holding

The applicants failed to demonstrate arguability; no memorandum of appeal was annexed and no evidence of applying for or paying for proceedings was produced

Reasoning

The court held that to succeed on a stay of proceedings application the applicant must show an arguable appeal. Save for a notice of appeal, the applicants neither annexed a memorandum of appeal nor showed they had applied for or paid for the typed proceedings and ruling. Without these, the court could not discern the merit of the intended appeal and would not go on a fishing expedition.

p. 5
02

Whether the application was brought expeditiously

Holding

The application was filed ten months after the impugned ruling and one day out of a court-ordered deadline, without leave, evidencing indolence

Reasoning

The impugned ruling was delivered on May 13, 2021 and the application filed on March 25, 2022, ten months later, with no explanation. The court had issued an ultimatum on March 24, 2022 to file the application by close of day; filing a day late without leave demonstrated delay. The applicants' indolence could not be visited on respondents who had complied with pre-trial directions.

p. 5
03

Whether the application was saved by the court's inherent jurisdiction despite being filed out of the directed timeline

Holding

The court, in the spirit of section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, deemed the application properly on record despite being filed one day late

Reasoning

Although the application was filed on March 25, 2022, one day outside the court's ultimatum and without leave, the court invoked section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and deemed it properly on record, proceeding to determine it on its merits rather than striking it out as abandoned.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An arguable appeal is not one that will necessarily succeed but one which raises triable issues, and the applicant must demonstrate arguability, typically by annexing a memorandum of appeal
  • Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action interfering with a litigant's right to conduct litigation; the test is high and stringent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicants' application dated March 23, 2022 seeking stay of execution/proceedings pending appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 42 rule 6(1), 6(4), rule 2; Order 11
  • Environment and Land Court Act 2011Section 19(3)(f), (i) & (j)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 159(2)(a)(b)(c) and (d)

Cases cited (6)

  • Robert Ngaruiya Chutha v Joseph Chege Ndungu
    [2014] eKLR

    Substantial loss test - stay must not render intended appeal nugatory

  • David Kihare Murage v Jacinta Karuana Nyangi & another
    [2015] eKLR

    Importance of stating readiness to furnish security under order 42 rule 6(2)

  • Loice Khachendi Onyango v Alex Inyango & another
    (2017) eKLR

    Court's discretion in granting or refusing stay of execution

  • Global Tours & Travels Limited; Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No 43 of 2000

    Factors for stay of proceedings - judicial discretion, expeditious disposal, arguability

  • Mwangi v Nyali Golf & Country Club
    (civil application E080 of 2021) [2022] KECA 455 (KLR)

    Lack of annexed memorandum of appeal means arguability not demonstrated

  • Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei
    [2019] eKLR

    Stay of proceedings is grave; test is high and stringent

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; sections 19(3)(f), (i) & (j) of the Environment and Land Court Act 2011; section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tormoi & another v Koech (Sued in his Capacity as the Trustee and Executor of the Estate of Kipngeno Arap Ngeny) & 3 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 23 of 2020 & Environment & Land Case 13 of 2019 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18525/eng@2023-07-06

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