Henry Muli Mbathi & another v Ndegwa Ngando & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Warsame, Murgor, Sichale JJ.A
Judgment Date
October 23, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2

Case Brief: Henry Muli Mbathi & another v Ndegwa Ngando & another [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Henry Muli Mbathi & Rose Katuku Mbathi v. Ndegwa Ngando & Embakasi Ranching Co. Limited
- Case Number: Civil Application No. 169 of 2020
- Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: October 23, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Warsame, Murgor, Sichale JJ.A
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court include:
- Whether the applicants' intended appeal against the judgment of the Environment and Land Court is arguable.
- Whether the execution of the judgment should be stayed to prevent the intended appeal from being rendered nugatory.

3. Facts of the Case:
The parties involved in this dispute are the applicants, Henry Muli Mbathi and Rose Katuku Mbathi, and the respondents, Ndegwa Ngando and Embakasi Ranching Company Limited. The dispute centers around the ownership of plot No P-171 B, which both the applicants and the 1st respondent claim was allocated to them by the 2nd respondent. The Environment and Land Court ruled in favor of the 1st respondent, dismissing the applicants’ counterclaim and ordering the 2nd respondent to complete the transfer of the plot to the 1st respondent. The applicants argue that they will suffer substantial loss if the transfer is executed, as they risk losing the property and facing contempt proceedings.

4. Procedural History:
The applicants filed a Notice of Motion on June 16, 2020, invoking the court's jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b) to seek a stay of execution of the judgment rendered by Hon. E.O. Obaga on May 21, 2020. The court considered the merits of the application, focusing on whether the appeal was arguable and whether it would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court relied on Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which allows for a stay of execution pending an appeal if the court is satisfied that the appeal is arguable and that not granting the stay would render the appeal nugatory.
- Case Law: The court referenced the case of Jaribu Holdings Ltd v. Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (CA No. 314 of 2007), which outlines the criteria for granting a stay of execution.
- Application: The court found that the applicants had presented nine grounds of appeal, asserting that the trial judge failed to appreciate documentary evidence indicating the 2nd applicant's ownership of the plot. The court determined that the appeal was not frivolous and that executing the judgment would render the appeal nugatory, as the transfer of the property to the 1st respondent would affect the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, the court decided to preserve the status quo until the substantive issues were resolved.

6. Conclusion:
The Court of Appeal granted the application for a stay of execution, allowing the applicants to maintain the status quo regarding the ownership of plot No P-171 B pending the determination of their appeal. This decision underscores the importance of preserving the rights of parties involved in land disputes until all legal avenues have been exhausted.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case.

8. Summary:
The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the applicants, granting a stay of execution of the lower court's judgment concerning the ownership of plot No P-171 B. The ruling is significant as it highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that appeals are not rendered moot by premature enforcement of judgments, particularly in sensitive matters involving land ownership.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

This is the end of the summary preview.