Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment and Land Appeal 7 of 2023· [2023] KEELC 19105 (KLR)

Mudogo v Khasandi & another

Environment and Land Court
26 July 2023
1,464 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to pause a lawsuit's dismissal because a dismissal orders nothing, so there is nothing to 'stay' or enforce.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Hudson Laban Mudogo, moved the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma by Notice of Motion dated February 13, 2023 seeking a temporary stay of execution of the decree in Kimilili PM ELC No. E005 of 2022 pending his appeal against the trial court's judgment of January 23, 2023, with costs in the cause. He deposed that the trial magistrate failed to scrutinise the oral and documentary evidence, that the respondents had invaded the suit property and built structures before expiry of his lease, occasioning substantial losses. The respondents filed a joint replying affidavit contending the application was defective and incompetent; they pointed out that the trial court had dismissed the suit with no orders as to costs after the applicant failed to prove his case, that no decree was exhibited, and that there was nothing to execute. The court framed two issues: whether the criteria for stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules were met, and whether stay can issue against a negative order. It found the application was filed without unreasonable delay, but held the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, mere assertion being insufficient. It further held, following Court of Appeal authority, that a dismissal is a negative order incapable of execution, so no stay could issue. The application was dismissed with costs on July 26, 2023.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay

Holding

Yes - filed 14 days after judgment, with memorandum of appeal filed 9 days after judgment

Reasoning

The court compared the dates of judgment (January 23, 2023), the memorandum of appeal (February 2, 2023) and the application (February 13, 2023), and found both steps taken promptly, satisfying the delay limb of Order 42 Rule 6.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss

Holding

No - mere assertion of substantial loss is insufficient; the burden lay on the applicant

Reasoning

The trial court dismissed the suit and denied damages as unsubstantiated. The applicant had to prove the substantial loss he would suffer; mere occupation of the land or bare allegations do not suffice. This limb failed, so security need not be considered.

p. 3
03

Whether stay can issue against a negative order

Holding

No - a dismissal is incapable of execution and no stay can issue

Reasoning

Relying on Court of Appeal authority, the court held that where the order sought to be stayed commands no party to do, refrain from doing, or pay anything, there is nothing to enforce, so stay of execution does not lie.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution cannot issue against a negative order - a dismissal orders nothing capable of enforcement

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated February 13, 2023 and filed in court on February 17, 2023 is dismissed with costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6

Cases cited (5)

  • Masisi Mwita -vs- Damaris Wanjiku Njeri
    Civil Appeal No.107 of 2015 (2016) eKLR

    Criteria for stay of execution pending appeal

  • Halal & Another Vs Thornton & Turpin Ltd

    Three conditions for stay: sufficient cause, substantial loss, security, without unreasonable delay

  • Hassan Guyo Wakalo…Vs…Straman EA Ltd
    (2013)

    Applicant must show intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted

  • Ndungu Kinyanjui v Kibicho Kugeria Services & Another
    (2007) KLR

    Stay cannot issue against a negative order

  • David Thiong'o T/A Welcome General Stores v Market Fancy Emporium
    Civil application No Nai 47 of 2007

    An order not requiring any party to do or refrain from doing anything is incapable of execution

On appeal from
Principal Magistrate's Court at Kimilili
Kimilili PM ELC No. E005 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mudogo v Khasandi & another", Case Analysis (2023). Environment and Land Appeal 7 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/19105/eng@2023-07-26

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