AI Legal Chatbot
Documents
Cases
Laws
Law Firms
Add Law Firm
LPMS
Quizzes
Login
Join
Michael Kiberenge v Peter Mungai Muthami & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
S. M. Kibunja
Judgment Date
October 28, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Case Summary
Full Judgment
Case Brief: Michael Kiberenge v Peter Mungai Muthami & 3 others [2020] eKLR
1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Michael Kiberenge v. Peter Mungai Muthami & Others
- Case Number: ELC CASE NO. 1 OF 2012 (OS)
- Court: Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: 28th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): S. M. Kibunja
- Country: Kenya
2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following legal issues:
- Whether the 2nd Defendant has made out a reasonable case for a stay of execution order pending appeal.
- Who should bear the costs of the application.
3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Michael Kiberenge, filed a motion for a stay of execution regarding a judgment issued on 6th December 2019, which ruled in favor of the 2nd Defendant, Peter Mungai Muthami. The Plaintiff contended that the judgment would lead to his eviction from his family home located on the disputed land. The 2nd Defendant claimed ownership of land parcel Uasin Gishu/Kimumu/1216 and asserted that the Plaintiff had encroached upon this land, while the Plaintiff's homestead was situated on a different parcel (Uasin Gishu/Kimumu/1217). The Plaintiff sought to appeal the judgment and requested a stay of execution to prevent immediate eviction.
4. Procedural History:
The Plaintiff's application for a stay was made through a Notice of Motion dated 13th February 2020, supported by an affidavit. The application was opposed by the 2nd Defendant, who filed a replying affidavit on 25th February 2020. Following directions from the court, both parties submitted written arguments. The court had to consider the merits of the stay application before the expiration of the three-month period given for the Plaintiff to vacate the property.
5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the principles governing stay of execution applications, particularly the need to demonstrate substantial loss and the likelihood of success on appeal.
- Case Law: The court referenced previous decisions that outline the criteria for granting a stay of execution, emphasizing the necessity for the applicant to show that they would suffer substantial loss if the stay were not granted.
- Application: The court found that the Plaintiff would face significant hardship if evicted from his family home, especially if he were to succeed in his appeal. The 2nd Defendant’s claims regarding ownership were not sufficiently rebutted by the Plaintiff, and the court highlighted that the Plaintiff had not disputed the 2nd Defendant's ownership of the land. However, the potential for substantial loss in terms of housing warranted the granting of the stay, contingent upon the Plaintiff depositing security.
6. Conclusion:
The court granted the Plaintiff's application for a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The stay was limited to allowing the Plaintiff to continue residing in his homestead, with the condition that he deposit Kshs. 200,000 as security. The costs of the application were ordered to abide by the outcome of the appeal.
7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling.
8. Summary:
The court's decision to grant a stay of execution allows the Plaintiff to remain in his home while his appeal is pending, thus preventing immediate eviction. This case underscores the court's consideration of personal hardship in property disputes and the importance of providing security when granting stays of execution. The ruling reflects a balance between the rights of property ownership and the need to protect individuals from undue hardship during legal proceedings.
Document Summary
Below is the summary preview of this document.
This is the end of the summary preview.
📢 Share this document with your network
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Related Documents
Cleophas Malalah v Kakamega County Government & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary
In re Estate of SKW – (Deceased) [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Peter Mwendwa Malonza t/a Malonza & Co. Advocates v Stephen Nzuki Mwania & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Cannon Assurance Co. Ltd v John Simon Karanja [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Ibrahim Osman Abdi v Sawada Ali & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Sunrise Homes Limited & 2 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited & 3 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary
Patrick Munyao & another v Standard Chartered Bank (K) [2020] eKLR Case Summary
View all summaries