SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Mbuthia v Murithi (Civil Appeal (Application) E123 of 2023) [2024] KECA 257 (KLR) (8 March 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KECA 257 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
257
Citation
[2024] KECA 257 (KLR)
Decided
8 March 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil Appeal (Application)PostureApplication for stay of execution of judgmentCoramW. KARANJA, JAMILA MOHAMMED, A.O. MUCHELULE
Holding

The court allows the application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Facts

Joseph Mbuthia was the defendant in a suit filed by Irene Wangithi Kinyua Murithi at the Environment and Land Court at Nanyuki. Murithi sought eviction of Mbuthia from the suit property and an order of permanent injunction. Mbuthia opposed the suit, claiming he had been in possession of the property since 1990 and had developed it.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had an arguable appeal
  2. Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted

Reasoning

The court finds the appeal arguable and grants the stay as there is a risk of eviction if the appeal is not successful.

Outcome

The application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree is granted.

Orders

  • Order the stay of execution of the judgment and decree until the appeal is heard and determined

Remedies

  • Costs do abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Land Registration Act, 2012
  • Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya
Cases cited (2)
  • Trust Bank Limited & Another -vs- Investech Bank Limited & 3 Others [2010]eKLR
  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui -vs- Tony Keter & 5 Others
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case