Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNarok ELC 2 of 2023 (Notice of Motion dated 19th March, 2024)· [2024] KEELC 6596 (KLR)

Knochella v Kanchuel & 3 others; Olalui Group Ranch (Proposed Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 2 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6596 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 October 2024
CMC. G. Mbogo
2,150 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to pause a Narok land case, confirming stays of proceedings are only granted in exceptional circumstances.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Narok on a notice of motion dated 19th March, 2024 by a proposed interested party seeking a stay of proceedings in Narok ELC 2 of 2023 pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal against a ruling of the court dismissing its application to be joined as an interested party. The applicant, through its chairperson Michael Lekishon Ole Risa, claimed ownership of Narok/Trans-Mara/Olalui/1, alleged fraudulent subdivision, and argued that the appeal raised an arguable fair-hearing question and that a stay would allow the Court of Appeal to determine the joinder issue. The plaintiff/respondent opposed, contending there was no arguable appeal, no memorandum of appeal was produced, the applicant was not the registered owner, and the application was a delay tactic. In determining the single issue of whether the threshold for stay of proceedings was met, the court applied the Global Tours & Travels criteria, holding that a stay of proceedings is a radical remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances, requiring weighing of expeditious disposal, arguability of the intended appeal, judicial time and expedition. Although the application was brought without delay and the fair-hearing point was prima facie arguable, the applicant did not supply a memorandum of appeal, so the court could not assess arguability and held that determining the appeal's chances was not its province. Unable to discern when the intended appeal would be heard, the court found the motion lacking in merit, dismissed it, and ordered costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the threshold for stay of proceedings pending an intended appeal was met

Holding

The application failed; the court could not assess arguability of the appeal because no memorandum of appeal was supplied, and the indefinite duration of the stay outweighed the applicant's interest

Reasoning

The court adopted the Global Tours & Travels criteria: interest of justice, expeditious disposal, prima facie arguability of the intended appeal, judicial time and expedition. While the application was brought without delay and fair hearing was prima facie arguable, the applicant never supplied the memorandum of appeal, so the court could not pronounce on arguability. Being unable to discern when the appeal would be heard, the court weighed judicial time and the parties' interests against an open-ended stay and dismissed the motion, with costs in the cause.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A stay of proceedings is a radical remedy granted only in very exceptional circumstances, weighing expeditious disposal, arguability of the intended appeal, judicial time and expedition of the application

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 19th March, 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (11)

  • EG v Attorney General; David Kuria Mbote & 10 others (Interested Parties)
    [2021] eKLR
  • David Morton Silverstein v Atsango Chesoni
    [2002] eKLR
  • Stanley Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Gulf Timber & Hardware Supplies Limited v Ngaruiya & 5 others
    (Civil Appeal E203 of 2021) [2022] KECA 87 (KLR)
  • Peter Kariuki Mburu & another v Neema Shah
    [2021] eKLR
  • Matata & another v Rono & another
    (Civil Appeal E034 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 2799 (KLR)
  • Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei
    [2019] eKLR
  • Christopher Ndolo Mutuku & another v CFC Stanbic Bank Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya & 2 others
    [2003] eKLR
  • Global Tours & Travels Limited
    Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause 43 of 2000
  • Muchanga Investments Limited v Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 others
    [2009] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Knochella v Kanchuel & 3 others; Olalui Group Ranch (Proposed Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 2 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6596 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Narok ELC 2 of 2023 (Notice of Motion dated 19th March, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6596/eng@2024-10-08

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