Rapemo v Orech (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5033 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court stopped an eviction because appeals must be heard before losing your home, provided modest security was deposited.
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 court should order a stay of execution of the judgment in Oyugis Senior Principal Magistrate's Court Environment and Land Case No. 55 of 2019, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.Who should bear the costs of this application?
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
The application met the requirements: substantial loss was demonstrated by the impending eviction, the application was lodged without unreasonable delay (twenty-one days after judgment), and the applicant was directed to furnish security of Kshs.30,000
The court applied the statutory triple test in Order 42 Rule 6(2): substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and furnishing of security. The applicant faced imminent eviction from the suit land, which would occasion substantial loss and render the appeal nugatory. The application was filed twenty-one days after the judgment, which the court accepted as without unreasonable delay. The court exercised its discretion on security by ordering a deposit of Kshs.30,000 within thirty days, with the stay lapsing automatically on default.
Legal principles established
#- An impending eviction from suit land capable of occasioning substantial loss constitutes special circumstances attracting a stay of execution pending appeal
- The court's discretion on stay should be exercised so as not to render a successful appeal nugatory
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the trial court's judgment and decree in Oyugis MCELC 55 of 2019 granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.Applicant directed to deposit in court within thirty (30) days the sum of Kshs.30,000 as security for due performance of the decree, failing which the stay shall automatically lapse without further orders
- 3.Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal
- 4.Mention on 30th September 2024 to confirm compliance and for directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Oyugis Senior Principal Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land Case No. 55 of 2019)
- 55 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over subordinate court decisions under Sections 75 and 79G of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya); stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#The first two prayers in the application (marked 'Moot' in the judgment)
The judgment does not state reasons; the prayers were simply marked 'Moot' and relief was confined to paragraph 1(c)
Costs
Costs of this application be the costs in the 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.
Wherefore, the stay order sought in the application dated 25th April 2024 as set out in paragraph 1(c) hereinabove, be and is hereby granted pending the hearing and determination of the instant appeal and subject to the condition as stated in paragraph 18 hereinabove.
In the instant case, there is an impending eviction of the applicant from the suit land which may occasion her substantial loss as disclosed in the application. Indeed, those are special circumstances that attract the stay order sought in the application.
Clearly, Article 48 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 anchors the right of access to justice. Furthermore, the applicant is entitled to unlimited right to fair hearing of this appeal as stipulated in Articles 50(1) and 25(c) of the same Constitution.
It is in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse a stay but what has to be judged in every case is whether there are or not particular circumstances in the case to make an order staying execution.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the trial judgment was delivered on 4th April 2023 in one passage and 4th April 2024 in another, an internal contradiction on the date of the decision appealed from
The respondent's name is not stated anywhere in the judgment; the parties are referred to only as applicant and respondent
The case number of the appeal before the ELC is not disclosed in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rapemo v Orech (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5033 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 25th April 2024, appeal from Oyugis MCELC 55 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5033/eng@2024-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.