PETER KANYIRI KOIGI vs MAKAHU OLE SEKUNDA [1999] KECA 83 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal froze the position on disputed premises pending appeal, showing consent can secure interim protection without a fight.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the status quo of the suit premises should be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the applicant's intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Preservation of the status quo of suit premises pending an intended appeal
The Court ordered maintenance of the status quo on the basis of the respondents' non-objection, and reserved costs of the application to the intended appeal.
This is a brief interlocutory order made by consent in effect: counsel for the respondents indicated he was not averse to the status quo being maintained. The court, exercising its discretion to preserve the subject matter of the intended appeal, ordered the status quo to continue and made no order as to immediate costs, placing them in the intended appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Where a respondent is not averse to maintenance of the status quo of suit premises pending an intended appeal, the Court of Appeal will order that the status quo be maintained, with costs of the application reserved to the intended appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.That the status quo in respect of the suit premises be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the applicant's intended appeal
- 2.That the costs occasioned by the application shall be in the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C. Originating Summons No. 556 of 1999
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to preserve the status quo pending an intended appeal (rule cited in the cause number: 84/99 UR); no specific constitutional or statutory provision is quoted in the order
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
we order that the status quo in respect of the said premises be so maintained. The costs occasioned by this application shall be in the intended appeal.
Given at Nairobi this 16th day of August, 1999.
Issues in the judgment
#The bench listing contains a typographical error in the rank of the second judge: 'JUDGE OF APPEL' instead of 'JUDGE OF APPEAL'.
The document is a short interlocutory order rather than a reasoned judgment; it contains no discussion of the merits, no cited authorities and no statutory provisions, limiting the brief's content.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "PETER KANYIRI KOIGI vs MAKAHU OLE SEKUNDA [1999] KECA 83 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). Civil Application No. NAI. 211 of 1999 (84/99 UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/83/eng@1999-08-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.