REPUBLIC vs THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR,THE DIRECTOR OF LAND ADJUDICATION & SETTLEMENT & THE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR Ex Parte DANIEL OLE KEIYUA TIEPON,SAMUEL PANYAKO SAKAJA,PARAOINKAN OLOMERA,OLE TUNAI KISIKO and LOLEINGABWAL,WILLIAM PARSHOIYO PUYA,MICH [2000] KECA 227 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause a High Court land decision because the applicants skipped their chance to be heard and showed no real harm from proceeding.
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 intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether, unless the decision of the superior court is stayed, the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal was arguable on the ground that the applicant was not granted an opportunity to be heard
The court held the ground failed because the applicant was given an opportunity to be heard but did not take it; the learned judge was plainly right.
The only complaint urged before the court was denial of a hearing. The court found as a fact that the opportunity had been given and the applicant failed to avail himself of it. On that basis the learned judge of the High Court was plainly right, and the court was not persuaded that the intended appeal was arguable.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory unless the decision was stayed
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted.
Having failed on the arguability limb, the applicant also had to satisfy the second limb of the rule 5(2)(b) test. The court found that the applicant had not shown that, unless restrained, the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and on both limbs the application necessarily failed.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for a stay under rule 5(2)(b) must first satisfy the court that the intended appeal is arguable, and secondly that unless the decision is restrained the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
- A party who was afforded an opportunity to be heard but did not avail himself of it cannot argue that the intended appeal is arguable on the ground of denial of a hearing.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for stay under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C. Misc. Civil Case No. 1680 of 1999
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of the decision of the High Court given on 30 July 1999
The applicant failed to show the intended appeal was arguable and failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory unless restrained
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs to the respondents).
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.
The grounds on which a stay may be granted are now well settled: First, the applicant must satisfy us that the intended appeal is arguable.
Secondly, the applicant must show that unless restrained the appeal would be rendered nugatory. This the applicant has not shown.
In our judgment, therefore the application fails and is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling describes the decision of the superior court as given on 30 July 1999, while the application heading refers to a judgment of the High Court dated 20th July 2000; the judgment does not reconcile the two dates.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Khadijah Ali Omar & Ahmed Omar (suing as administrators and beneficiaries of the Estate of Omar Khamis (Deceased) v Kaushumu Wambui [2017] KEELC 2159 (KLR)[2017] KEELC 2159 (KLR)26 Jul 2017applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "REPUBLIC vs THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR,THE DIRECTOR OF LAND ADJUDICATION & SETTLEMENT & THE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR Ex Parte DANIEL OLE KEIYUA TIEPON,SAMUEL PANYAKO SAKAJA,PARAOINKAN OLOMERA,OLE TUNAI KISIKO and LOLEINGABWAL,WILLIAM PARSHOIYO PUYA,MICH [2000] KECA 227 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Application No. Nai. 306 of 2000 (147/2000 UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/227/eng@2000-12-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.