Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 14th November, 2023 (in the Petition at the Environment and Land Court, Mombasa)· [2024] KEELC 1361 (KLR)

Barnabas East Africa v County Government of Mombasa & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 29 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1361 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
5 March 2024
6,508 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~26 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court paused execution of a Kshs 27 million award against Mombasa County, but only if the County deposits Kshs 5.5 million as security within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (Naikuni, J.) determined a Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2023 by the County Government of Mombasa seeking stay of execution of the court's judgment of 12th October 2023, which had awarded the Petitioner Kshs. 27,150,000 for infringement of his constitutional rights after the County constructed a cabro access road on his private property (CR: 2283/1 Plot No. VIMN/809), together with a mandatory injunction to restore the property. The Applicant, having filed a Notice of Appeal and intending to appeal to the Court of Appeal, relied on Order 42 Rules 6 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, arguing substantial loss to the public, lack of budgetary provision, and exemption from security as a government entity. The Petitioner opposed, contending the County did not fall within Order 42 Rule 8, that no security had been offered, and that the draft appeal raised no arguable grounds. The court framed three issues: merit of the application, entitlement to reliefs, and costs. Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2), it found substantial loss demonstrated, the application filed without undue delay (about one month and two days after judgment), but noted the security condition. Rejecting the argument that the Rule 8 exemption ousted its discretion, the court exercised it in the interest of justice and granted stay conditioned on a deposit of Kshs. 5,500,000 into a joint escrow account within thirty days, failing which the application would stand dismissed automatically. It made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant would suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted

Holding

The court found substantial loss demonstrated, since execution would deprive the public of an access road and the decretal sum would be difficult to recover if the appeal succeeded.

Reasoning

The court applied the test in Kenya Shell Ltd v Benjamin Karuga and Mukuma v Abuoga, holding that substantial loss is the cornerstone for granting stay. It accepted the Applicant's averments regarding lack of budget, public access to the road and the difficulty of recovering the decretal sum from the Petitioner/Respondent, who had produced no valuation report or bank statements to show capacity to refund.

p. 10
02

Whether the application was made without undue delay

Holding

The application filed about one month and two days after judgment was held to have been made timeously and without undue delay.

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered on 12th October 2023; a Notice of Appeal was filed on 18th October 2023 and the application on 14th November 2023. On this chronology the court found the application expeditious, satisfying the second prerequisite under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a).

p. 10
03

Whether the Applicant, being a government entity, was required to furnish security

Holding

Despite Order 42 Rule 8 exempting the Government from security, the court exercised its discretion and directed a security deposit of Kshs. 5,500,000.00 as a condition for the stay.

Reasoning

Relying on Aron C. Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia and Gianfranco Manenthi v Africa Merchant Assurance Co Ltd, the court held that security guarantees due performance of the decree and that the issue of deposit is for the court, not the applicant's willingness. The court balanced the Government's Rule 8 exemption against the interest of the decree holder, fixing a partial deposit of the decretal sum in an escrow account.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • The three conditions for granting stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) - substantial loss, no undue delay and furnishing of security - are conjunctive and must all be met simultaneously.
  • Even where Order 42 Rule 8 exempts the Government from providing security, the court retains discretion to impose appropriate security conditions, since security is for the due performance of the decree and not to punish the judgment debtor.
  • The purpose of stay of execution pending appeal is to preserve the substratum of the case so that a successful appellant is not reduced to a holder of a barren result.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 14th November, 2023 found to have merit and allowed subject to fulfilment of the stated pre-conditions
  2. 2.Stay of execution of the decree arising from the Judgment of Justice L. L. Naikuni delivered on 12th October, 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal in the Court of Appeal
  3. 3.1st Respondent/Applicant to deposit Kshs. 5,500,000.00 as security for performance of the decree in a Joint Escrow bank account in the names of Messrs. Benedict Nzamba & Company Advocates and the County Government of Mombasa within thirty (30) days
  4. 4.Failure to comply with the security condition, the Notice of Motion shall automatically stand dismissed and execution of the decree shall ensue procedurally as provided for by law
  5. 5.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 8
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Section 27(1)
  • Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights & Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013Rule 26(1) & (2)

Cases cited (14)

  • Njiru Micheni Nthiga v Governor, Tharaka Nithi County Government & 5 others
    (2021) eKLR
  • Geofrey Muriungi & Another v John Rukunga M'imonyo Suing As Legal Representative of The Estate of Kinoti Simon Rukunga (Deceased)
    2016 eKLR
  • Century Oil Trading Company Limited v Kenya Shell Limited Nairobi
    (2008) eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    {1982} KLR 417
  • Consolidated Marine v Nampijja & Another
    Civil App. No. 93 of 1989 (Nairobi)
  • Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kigibu & Ruth Wairimu Karuga
    (1982-1988) KAR 1018
  • Mukuma v Abuoga
    (1988) KLR 645
  • Absalom Dora v Turbo Transporters
    (2013) eKLR
  • Aron C. Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia T/A Rairundalia & Co. Advocates
  • Gianfranco Manenthi & Another v Africa Merchant Assurance Company Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
  • James Wangalwa & Another vs. Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
  • Jasbir Rai Singh v Tarchalan Singh
    eKLR (2014)
  • Cecilia Karuru Ngayo v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
    eKLR (2014)
  • Hussein Muhumed Sirat v Attorney General & Another
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rules 6 and 8, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Barnabas East Africa v County Government of Mombasa & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 29 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1361 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 14th November, 2023 (in the Petition at the Environment and Land Court, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1361/eng@2024-03-05

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