Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedApplication dated 20th June 2024 (in ELC cause; reference to E293 of 2024 Court of Appeal)· [2024] KEELC 7003 (KLR)

Ndatani Enterprises Company Ltd & another v Railway Housing Co-operative Society Ltd (Environment & Land Case 224 of 2009) [2024] KEELC 7003 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 October 2024
LMLucy N. Mbugua
446 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to pause a contempt ruling because the applicants waited two months to file, with no good explanation for the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, plaintiffs in a matter that has been in court for roughly 15 years, sought by notice of motion dated 20th June 2024 a stay of the ruling of 24th April 2024, by which Alexander Muema Muthengi was found in contempt of court, together with all consequential orders including a notice to show cause, pending an intended appeal. The application was supported by the affidavit of Alexander Muema Muthengi, who stated that he had filed an application in E293 of 2024 in the Court of Appeal seeking leave to file a notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal out of time, and contended the application had high chances of success. The respondents opposed through the replying affidavit of their treasurer, Aggrey Ogutu, who noted that 124 title deeds had since been forwarded for transfer to purchasers and that the intended appeal was purely dilatory. The court, applying Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the decision in Feisal Amin Jan Mohammed, held that stay requires demonstration of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and offer of security. Finding no reasonable explanation for the two-month delay in filing after the contempt ruling, and considering the age of the matter, Justice Lucy N. Mbugua declined the orders sought and dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for stay under Order 42 rule 6

Holding

The application failed for inordinate and unexplained delay; stay was declined and the application dismissed with costs.

Reasoning

The court applied the trite conditions in Feisal Amin Jan Mohammed: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and proper security. The ruling under challenge was delivered on 24th April 2024, finding Alexander Muema in contempt, yet the application was only filed in June 2024 with no reasonable explanation for the delay. Considering the matter's 15-year age, the court found the delay fatal and declined the orders sought.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A stay of execution order is granted where the applicant demonstrates substantial loss, files the application without unreasonable delay, and offers proper security

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated June 20, 2024 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndatani Enterprises Company Ltd & another v Railway Housing Co-operative Society Ltd (Environment & Land Case 224 of 2009) [2024] KEELC 7003 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 20th June 2024 (in ELC cause; reference to E293 of 2024 Court of Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7003/eng@2024-10-17

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