Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELC 1774 (KLR)

Kaguri & another (Suing on behalf of the Estate of Nahashon M'Ikiamba M'Mpango) v M’Rukwaru & another (Environment and Land Appeal E30 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1774 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 March 2024
1,263 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (C K Nzili J) on a notice of motion seeking a stay of execution of the court's judgment and orders issued on 22 November 2023, pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal, following the filing of a notice of appeal on 29 November 2023. The applicants, sworn affidavits of Godfrey Muthee Mwiti, feared eviction from land they claimed to have exclusively occupied and developed for over 30 years, contending that the decree reverting L.R Nos. Ruiri/Rwarera/4257 and 4258 to the name of the deceased, Nahashon M'Kiambati M'Mpango, to be dealt with under the Law of Succession Act, would render them landless squatters and destroy their investments. The respondents, through a replying affidavit of Rosalia Kaguri and Charity Makena, opposed the application, averring that the applicants had vacated the land after judgment and moved to Isiolo Town, that the decree caused no prejudice as the land reverted to the deceased and not to the respondents, and that the applicants could still claim their share in the succession proceedings. The court applied the settled principles on stay pending appeal: that substantial loss must be demonstrated and that the purpose of stay is to preserve the subject matter so the appeal is not rendered nugatory. It held that the decree contained no order for eviction or vacant possession, that the applicants' fears were unsubstantiated, that they held the title deeds without offering to surrender them or furnish security, and that registration in the deceased's name favoured all beneficiaries, including the applicants. The application was dismissed with costs on 20 March 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants demonstrated substantial loss warranting a stay of execution

Holding

The application failed because the decree contained no order for eviction, vacant possession or declaration of ownership; the claimed losses were not covered by the decree and the apprehension of eviction was unsubstantiated

Reasoning

The court noted the decree only cancelled the title deeds and reverted the land to the deceased's name to be dealt with under the Law of Succession Act. No notice of eviction had been served. The applicants held the title deeds, had not offered to surrender them, nor offered security or undertakings as conditions for the stay. The registration in the deceased's name favoured all beneficiaries including the applicants, so no disadvantage was introduced by the decree.

p. 2
02

Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay

Holding

No nugatory effect was established; reverting the land to the deceased's estate preserves the subject matter for succession proceedings in which the applicants retain their claims as beneficiaries

Reasoning

Relying on Nkama Group Ranch and Reliance Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments, the court weighed the conflicting claims of both sides and the prejudice each might suffer. It found that registration of the land in the name of the deceased favours all beneficiaries, the applicants included, who may still claim their share during succession proceedings, so no irreparable harm would arise pending appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The purpose of stay is to preserve the subject matter of appeal from preservable changes whose effect is to render the appeal nugatory
  • A stay applicant must show sufficient cause and demonstrate substantial loss; the successful litigant's right to the fruits of judgment must be weighed against the appellant's undoubted right of appeal
  • Substantial loss must be covered or contained in the decree complained of; fear of eviction not founded on the decree or substantiated by evidence does not constitute substantial loss

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for stay of execution pending the intended appeal is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Law of Succession ActNot specified

Cases cited (9)

  • James Wangalwa & another v Agnes Cheseto Naliaka
    [2012] eKLR
  • R.WW v EKW
    [2019] eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
  • Vishram Ravji Halai v Thorton & Turpin
    [1990] KLR 365
  • Gianfranco Manenthi & another v Africa Merchant Assurance Company
    [2019] eKLR
  • Arun C. Sharma v Ashana Raikundlaia t/a
    [2014] eKLR
  • Absalom Dova v Turbo Transporters
    [2013] eKLR
  • Nkama Group Ranch & others v Nakaya
    (Civil Application No. E416 of 2020) [2022] KECA 98 (KLR) 4th February 2022) (Ruling)
  • Reliance Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments Ltd
    [2002] E.A 227
Jurisdiction invoked
Discretionary power to stay execution pending appeal (inherent jurisdiction / applicable civil procedure rules), sought pending an intended appeal after filing of a notice of appeal on 29.11.2023

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kaguri & another (Suing on behalf of the Estate of Nahashon M'Ikiamba M'Mpango) v M’Rukwaru & another (Environment and Land Appeal E30 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1774 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1774/eng@2024-03-20

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