Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedBungoma ELC Appeal (interlocutory application dated 11th April 2024), arising from Bungoma CM ELC No. E019 of 2024· [2024] KEELC 5483 (KLR)

Ndalila & 2 others v Wambu (Environment and Land Appeal 13 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5483 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 July 2024
1,403 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

#

The Bungoma Environment and Land Court dismissed a stay application because the applicants never attached the documents their affidavit promised, showing paperwork slip-ups can sink strong cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2024 under Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Appellants/Applicants sought suspension of injunctive orders issued on 27th March 2024 by the trial court in Bungoma CM ELC No. E019 of 2024, maintenance of the status quo on land parcels East Bukusu/West Sang'alo/9304, 9307 and 9308 pending appeal, and stay of proceedings in the trial suit. The applicants asserted they had occupied the suit land since 1985, having been purchased by their father, and that the trial court granted the injunction without considering their replying affidavit. They also contended the trial suit was sub judice given their earlier suit, Bungoma ELC OS E005 of 2024. The Respondent opposed, arguing the Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions were unmet, that the applicants had not complied with trial court timelines, and that only the trial court could vary its own injunction under Order 40 Rule 7 as read with Section 81 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court identified a single issue: whether the applicants made a case for the orders sought. Finding that none of the documentary annexures (AN-1(a) & (b) and AN-2 to AN-6) referred to in the supporting affidavit had been attached, the court held that the supporting paragraphs were hollow and unproven and the application a 'lame duck', though the affidavit itself was not entirely defective. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants established a case for stay of execution/injunction suspension and status quo pending appeal

Holding

The application failed because the supporting affidavit referred to documentary evidence (annexures AN-1(a) & (b), AN-2 to AN-6) which was never attached, leaving the factual claims unproven.

Reasoning

The court noted that the supporting affidavit made numerous references to documentary evidence but none of the annexures were actually attached. Since the appellate court's mandate requires re-evaluating the evidence that was before the trial court, the absence of those documents made it impossible to upset the trial court's findings. Failure to attach the documents was held to be fatal to the application.

p. 3
02

Effect of omitting annexures on the validity of an affidavit

Holding

Omission of annexures does not render the entire affidavit defective, but the court will only rely on paragraphs not based on documentary evidence.

Reasoning

The court affirmed the trite position that an affidavit and its annexures together constitute evidence, and a party seeking to prove facts by affidavit must attach the documents referred to. Unattached references leave those paragraphs hollow and unproven. However, the defect is confined to the affected paragraphs; the remaining paragraphs of the affidavit remain usable evidence.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An affidavit and its annexures constitute evidence; a deponent who refers to documents must attach them, and failure to do so renders the supporting paragraphs hollow and unproven.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 11th April 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 81
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 12 Rule 7; Order 40 Rule 7; Order 42 Rule 6(2)
  • Land Registration ActSections 25, 26, 28

Cases cited (2)

  • Macharia t/a Macharia & Co Advocates vs. East African Standard (2002) eKLR 2 KLR 63
    (2002) eKLR 2 KLR 63
  • Kenya Wildlife Service vs. James Mutembei (2019) eKLR
    (2019) eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court (Bungoma)
Bungoma CM ELC No. E019 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 12 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndalila & 2 others v Wambu (Environment and Land Appeal 13 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5483 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Bungoma ELC Appeal (interlocutory application dated 11th April 2024), arising from Bungoma CM ELC No. E019 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5483/eng@2024-07-18

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