Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Application No. Nai. E116 of 2024 (Rule 5(2)(b) application dated April 16, 2024)

Milgo & 30 others v Disa Enterprises Limited & 4 others (Civil Application E190 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1603 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
8 November 2024
2,093 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal halted execution of a land judgment, protecting 31 Saika Estate home owners from eviction and demolition pending their appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal, Nairobi (Musinga, P., Lesiit and Ali-Aroni, JJA) delivered a single judgment on November 8, 2024 allowing a rule 5(2)(b) Notice of Motion dated April 16, 2024. The 31 applicants, home owners on LR No. 209/11620, Saika Estate, Nairobi, sought a stay of execution of the Environment and Land Court's judgment of February 22, 2024 in ELC Case No. 478 of 2018, which upheld the 1st respondent's Certificate of Title, dismissed their counterclaims resting on allegations of fraudulent allotment and adverse possession, ordered them to vacate, restrained their occupation, ordered restoration of the property, and awarded general damages of Kshs.100,000 for trespass. The applicants intended to appeal on grounds including the trial court's reliance on the wrong deed plan and the failure to produce survey evidence. Applying the twin test, the Court held the intended appeal arguable, declining to say more lest it embarrass the appeal bench. On the nugatory aspect, it found that execution would entail demolition of homes and eviction of occupants of over 25 years, permanently altering the property's character, and that the 1st respondent had not rebutted the allegation that it could not compensate the applicants, the onus of rebuttal lying on it. The Court granted the prayers: stay of execution and maintenance of the status quo over LR No. 209/11620 and LR No. 209/116199 pending the intended appeal, with costs of the application to abide the outcome of that appeal. The respondent's offer of security for mesne profits was not adopted. No decision was made on the merits of the intended appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
  2. 2.Whether, unless the orders sought are granted, the intended appeal, if successful, shall be rendered nugatory

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the twin principles for stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) were satisfied

Holding

The Court found the intended appeal arguable (without expressing views on the merits) and found that execution involving demolition and eviction would render it nugatory, and granted the stay and maintenance of status quo.

Reasoning

The Court applied the settled twin test: arguability and nugatory aspect. It declined to elaborate on arguability to avoid embarrassing the appeal bench. On the nugatory aspect, it weighed the respondent's entitlement to the fruits of its judgment against the applicants' risk of demolition of homes and eviction after long occupation. The respondent did not rebut the allegation of inability to compensate, the onus of rebuttal lying on it. Both limbs having been satisfied, the Court granted the prayers in the notice of motion.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the Court that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and that, unless the orders sought are granted, the appeal if successful shall be rendered nugatory.
  • Even one arguable ground of appeal suffices to establish arguability.
  • A respondent alleging that it cannot compensate the applicant, if unrebutted, supports a finding of nugatory aspect; the onus of rebuttal lies on the party alleged to be unable to compensate.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment issued by the trial court on February 22, 2024 in ELC Case No. 478 of 2018 pending hearing of the intended appeal
  2. 2.Maintenance of the status quo in respect of properties known as LR. No. 209/11620 and LR No. 209/116199 pending hearing of the intended appeal
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

majority
majority
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court (trial court)
Nairobi ELC Case No. 478 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal (stay of execution pending intended appeal)

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 have considered the competing interests between the parties and the need to preserve the substratum of the intended appeal.
p. 5Nugatory aspect - preservation of substratum of appeal
The applicants have satisfied the twin principles which the court considers in applications brought under rule 5(2) (b) of its Rules. Consequently, we grant the prayers set out in the notice of motion dated April 16, 2024. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.
p. 5Final orders / disposition

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The names of the applicants and the 1st respondent are not fully stated in the judgment; only the 1st respondent's director (Anthony Masibo Difiu) and the 8th applicant (Benson Mwongela Likuanye) are named, so the case title is reconstructed from the descriptions in the judgment.

minor

The second property referenced in the prayers, LR No. 209/116199, appears to be a typographical variant of LR No. 209/11620 and is not otherwise explained in the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Milgo & 30 others v Disa Enterprises Limited & 4 others (Civil Application E190 of 2024) [2024] KECA 1603 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Application No. Nai. E116 of 2024 (Rule 5(2)(b) application dated April 16, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1603/eng@2024-11-08

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