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 the judgment (Originating Summons dated 2nd July 2021)· [2024] KEELC 5066 (KLR)

Khaliango & another v Osodo (Environment & Land Case E037 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 5066 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 July 2024
3,510 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court refused to pause a dismissed case on appeal, ruling that a dismissal is a 'negative order' with nothing to stay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court (Boaz N. Olao, J) dated 4th July 2024 determines two applications. First, the Defendant, through new counsel Leonard Otieno Okanda, sought leave for the firm of Otieno Okanda Advocates to come on record after judgment and, further, dismissal of the 1st Plaintiff's pending application for offending Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court granted leave and, following the Court of Appeal decisions in Tobias M. Wafubwa v Bishop Ben Butali and Boniface Kiragu Waweru v James K. Mulinge, held that non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9 is procedural and curable under Article 159, so the 1st Plaintiff's application was properly before the Court. The substantive application, by the 1st Plaintiff acting in person, sought stay of execution of the judgment of 15th November 2023 dismissing the Plaintiffs' adverse possession claim over land parcel Bunyala/bulemia/851, pending an intended appeal. Applying Order 42 Rule 6, the Court found the 20-day delay reasonable but held that the Plaintiffs failed on the other conditions: they filed no appeal (no appeal number cited despite claiming to have filed a Record of Appeal), demonstrated no substantial loss since their structures are on parcel Bunyala/bulemia/2237 and the Defendant has been registered proprietor since 2013 with no counter-claim or eviction efforts, and offered no security. Decisively, the Court held that because it merely dismissed the suit - a negative order - there is nothing to stay, following Cooperative Bank v BIFU and Western College v Oranga. The application was dismissed with costs to the Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Properly of the 1st Plaintiff's application despite change from advocate to acting in person after judgment

Holding

The application is properly before the Court; non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9 is procedural and curable under Article 159

Reasoning

Although some High Court decisions strictly require a notice of change of advocate or notice to act in person after judgment, the Court of Appeal in Tobias M. Wafubwa and Boniface Kiragu Waweru held that Order 9 Rule 9 non-compliance is procedural, does not go to the root of proceedings and causes no prejudice, and Article 159 and the overriding principles may be invoked. Following these binding precedents, the Court declined to strike out the application.

p. 3
02

Conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6

Holding

The Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial loss, did not show sufficient cause as no appeal had been filed, and offered no security; only the absence of unreasonable delay was established

Reasoning

The Court listed the four requirements: sufficient cause, substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and security. The 20-day delay was reasonable, but the Plaintiffs asserted no appeal had been filed (no appeal case number cited), their structures lie on parcel 2237 not the suit land so they had an abode elsewhere, the Defendant has been registered proprietor since 2013 and filed no counter-claim, and no security was offered.

03

Availability of stay where the decree is a negative order

Holding

Stay of execution pending appeal is unavailable because the judgment merely dismissed the suit; only costs could be executed

Reasoning

Following Cooperative Bank of Kenya v BIFU and Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v Oranga, stay presupposes a positive order requiring performance. The Court only dismissed the suit with costs; neither party was ordered to do, refrain from doing, or pay anything other than costs, so there is no situation capable of being stayed.

04

Whether the Court could assess the arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

It cannot; that is a matter for the Court of Appeal

Reasoning

The judgment sought to be appealed was delivered by the High Court itself, so assessing the merits of the intended appeal would amount to sitting on appeal against its own judgment. That ground can only be raised before the Court of Appeal.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules is procedural, does not go to the root of the proceedings and does not cause prejudice, and Article 159 may be invoked to cure it where jurisdiction, the core of the dispute and the parties' rights are unaffected
  • Stay of execution pending appeal requires sufficient cause, substantial loss, an application made without unreasonable delay, and an offer of security
  • A notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a valid appeal
  • Stay of execution is not available where the judgment appealed from is a negative order (dismissal of suit with no positive obligations to execute)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayer No. 2 of the Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 2nd May 2024 granted: leave for the firm of Otieno Okanda Advocates to come on record for the Defendant
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion dated 5th December 2023 dismissed
  3. 3.The Plaintiffs shall meet the Defendant's costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(b)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 9 Rule 9
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1) and (2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 4 Rule 6(1)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActRule 75(1) and (2)

Cases cited (9)

  • Tobias M. Wafubwa -v- Bishop Ben Butali
    Civil Appeal No 3 of 2016 [2017] eKLR
  • Boniface Kiragu Waweru -v- James K. Mulinge
    2015 eKLR
  • Vishram Ravji Halai & Another -v- Thornton & Turpin (1963) Ltd
    1990 KLR 365 [Civil Application No Nai 15 of 1990]
  • Kenya Shell Ltd -v- Benjamin Kibiru & Another
    1986 KLR 410
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat -v- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others
    2014 eKLR
  • Machira -v- Mohamed
    2022 KEELC 2376 KLR
  • Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd -v- Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya)
    2015 eKLR
  • Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences -v- Oranga & Others
    1976-80 1 KLR 78
  • Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman -v- Keshavji Jivraj Shah
    2008 eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Khaliango & another v Osodo (Environment & Land Case E037 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 5066 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Summons dated 2nd July 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5066/eng@2024-07-04

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