PAUL KHAKINA MUSUNGU V PEPELA KHATELI & ANOTHER [2013] KEHC 3495 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

High Court at Bungoma

Civil Case 102 of 1994

PEPELA KHATELI ……………..………..…………………… 1^ST DEFENDANT

JOSEPH CHEBAYI CHESOLI ………………….…….........… 2^ND DEFENDANT

The 2^nd defendant/applicant has in his application dated 24^th January 2013 sought the following prayers;

(b).    A temporary injunction be issued restraining the plaintiff by himself, his agents and servants from entering the land, ploughing, harvesting trees or disposing of the suit land pending inter partes  hearing   of this application.

(c).     That the status quo obtained before judgment be ordered maintained pending determination of intended appeal.

(d).    The plaintiff be ordered arrested and committed to prison for discarding stay orders initially granted by the court.

The motion is based on the grounds on its face and on the  affidavit  sworn by   the

applicant. The motion is opposed  and  the plaintiff/respondent has filed a  replying

affidavit thereto.

According to the replying  affidavit at  paragraph 6, the plaintiff/respondent  states

 that he has been in occupation of the suit land even before the commencement of

this suit. At paragraph 9, he states that he has never engaged a purchaser to dispose

of the suit land and the  applicant  is  still  registered  as  owner  of this land. They

opposed the application because the  orders  sought  are  omnibus   and  therefore

cannot be granted  and finally  if the orders sought are granted, he will  be greatly

The  application  is  brought  under  order  42 Rule 6  (i) of the  CP  Rules  which

basically deal with stay pending appeal and  therefore the application  is properly

before the court and the technicalities raised by the respondent is disregarded  by

this  court  given  backing  on  the  provisions of   Art 159 of the Constitution  of

Kenya. The provision on sections 63 will not be adjudicated  by this court  as  the

applicant  abandoned   prayer  (d)  of  the  application  which  sought  to  have the

respondent arrested for violation of the stay orders given earlier by the trial judge.

It is not disputed from the records and from the bar that the plaintiff/respondent is

on  21^st  December   2012  demonstrating he  is  appealing  against  the    judgment 

delivered on 20^th December 2012 as required by  law. The applicant’s  worry  is

that the respondent may transfer  the  suit land  to  himself  and  dispose  of it  thus 

rendering  the appeal    nugatory  in  the   event  of   success. The  respondent  has

if this court  grant  stay  orders  in   terms   of   prayer  (c)  in  the  application, he  

will  suffer   no  prejudice. Prayer  (c) asks   for  the  status  quo  obtained   before

interpretation   of  this  status  quo and  which  I  order  to be maintained is that the

the  respondent  is  in  occupation  and  user  of  it  pending  the   determination of

the appeal. However the stay is conditional to the effect that if the applicant   does

not file his record of appeal within the stipulated time, then the stay orders granted

are  automatically  vacated  and the  respondent  be  at  liberty  to  move the   court

RULING DATED, SIGNED, READ AND DELIVERED in open court this 11^th day of February 2013.

A. OMOLLO