Odera

Odera ((Suing in her Capacity as the Legal Representative and Administrator of the
Estate of Gladys Betty Odera - Deceased)) v Balozi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
(Civil Application E302 of 2023) [2024] KECA 25 (KLR) (25 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECA 25 (KLR)
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPLICATION E302 OF 2023
DK MUSINGA, S OLE KANTAI & PM GACHOKA, JJA
JANUARY 25, 2024
BETWEEN
LAVENDER ACHIENG ODERA ........................................................... APPLICANT
(SUING IN HER CAPACITY AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GLADYS BETTY ODERA -
DECEASED)
AND
BALOZI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED .......... RESPONDENT
(Being an application for stay of further proceedings of the High Court of Kenya
at Nairobi (Visram, J.) dated 24th May, 2023 in H.C.C.C. No. 1075 of 2006)
RULING
1. In a plaint dated 9th October, 2006 led at the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi being HCCC No.
1075 of 2006, the plainti (Gladys Betty Odero, hereafter referred to as - the deceased), prayed for an
injunction to restrain the Defendant, Balozi Housing Co-operative Society Limited (the respondent)
from dealing with a property known as Plot No. 119 on LR. No. 12422/16 situate at Balozi Estate,
Nairobi. She also asked for an order of specic performance against the respondent. That plaint was
amended many times to reect various changes including substitution of the deceased by her daughter,
Lavendar Achieng Odera, after the deceased died.
2. In 2010 the people of Kenya promulgated a new Constitution. The Constitution of Kenya, 2010,
ushered in many changes in Kenyan’s way of life and administration. One of those changes created
special courts where the system of courts changed. Article 162 of the Constitution recognizes superior
courts which include a specialised court; the Environment and Land Court which under Article 162(2)
(b) shall deal with matters involving “... the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to,
land ...”.
3. Visram, J. was asked in a motion by Lavendar Achieng Odera (the applicant) to order the transfer
of the said HCCC No. 1075 of 2006 from the High Court of Kenya to the Environment and Land
kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/278724/ 1
Court for hearing and determination. In a ruling dated 24th May 2023, the learned Judge dismissed
the application.
4. We are asked in the Motion brought under section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, rule 5(2) (b) of
the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 (since replaced by the 2022 Rules) and all enabling provisions of law in
the main to order a stay of further proceedings of the said suit pending the hearing and determination
of an intended appeal; that costs of the Motion abide the outcome of the appeal, and that we make
such other orders as we may deem appropriate.
5. In grounds in support of the Motion and in a supporting adavit by the applicant, it is said inter
alia, that the ruling dated 24th May 2023, is tainted with legal and factual errors which warrant
the invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction; that the High Court was wrong to hold that it had no
jurisdiction to transfer the suit, which, according to the applicant, had been led in the correct court;
that the Judge was wrong to hold that the 2014 Practice Directions relating to transfer of suits was only
transitional; and that the Judge ignored the spirt and intent of those practice directions. It is further
stated that the ruling condemned the said suit to remain in a court without jurisdiction to hear it; that it
exposed the suit to being dismissed or struck out; that it left the applicant and the estate of the deceased
without any legal recourse where they were pursuing recovery of the suit property from the respondent.
6. Monica W. Ndungu, the respondent’s manager, in her replying adavit says amongst other things that
the applicant has not presented an arguable appeal or shown that the same would be rendered nugatory
if stay was not granted. She says that the Judge had no jurisdiction in the matter and could therefore
not order transfer of the suit; that the Judge exercised his discretion properly and:
“ ... the Applicant’s apprehensions in paragraph 26 of the Supporting Adavit are, in any
event, the natural consequences of the litigation process ”
For all that, the Motion should fail and be dismissed.
7. When the parties appeared before us on 31st October, 2023 on a virtual platform, the applicant was
represented by learned counsel Mr. Vincent Oloo, while the respondent was represented by learned
counsel Mr. J.M. Thiga. Both sides had led written submissions and case digests in support of their
respective positions. Mr. Oloo stressed that a substantive appeal against the impugned ruling, Civil
Appeal No. E727 of 2023, had already been led. He submitted that the suit at the High Court had
been led before the Environment and Land Court was established and that a party who meets the
threshold in the 2014 Practice
8. Directions issued by the Chief Justice should have their suit transferred. He concluded by submitting
that if stay was not granted the respondent would move the High Court to strike out the suit and the
suit could even be struck out by the court on its own motion.
9. Mr. Thiga thought that there was no arguable appeal. He submitted that the High Court had
considered and decided that it had no jurisdiction; that in those circumstances the suit should be struck
out. According to him, an applicant must show that if a suit is struck out with costs the respondent
would not be able to refund the costs.
10. We have considered the application and submissions made before us.
11. The principles that apply in an application of this nature are well known. For an applicant to succeed
he must show, rstly, that the appeal, or intended appeal, as the case may be, is arguable, which is the
same as saying that the appeal is not frivolous. Such an applicant must, in addition, show that the
appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory absent stay – see Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony
Ketter & Others [2013] eKLR. The applicant intends to argue on appeal as per draft Memorandum
of Appeal that the High Court distorted and misapprehended the import, tenor and purport of the
ELC Practice Directions dated 25th July 2014. She also intends to argue that the High Court erred in
law and fact in nding that it had no jurisdiction to transfer the suit from itself to ELC for hearing
and determination. There are other grounds set out in the draft Memorandum of Appeal. We nd the
grounds arguable on appeal, and as has been held by this Court, a single arguable point will suce as
an applicant need not show a multiplicity of arguable grounds to succeed in an application for stay of
further proceedings pending appeal.
12. On the nugatory aspect, the applicant says, and the respondent appears to agree, that there is imminent
danger that the suit at the High Court may be struck out any time, either on application or by the
Court itself. If the suit is struck out the applicant will be left without a remedy, which would mean
that the appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory.
13. We are satised that the applicant is entitled to the orders sought and we allow the Motion. There shall
be stay of proceedings in Nairobi HCCC No. 1075 of 2006 pending hearing and determination of
Civil Appeal No. E727 of 2023. Costs of the Motion will be in the appeal.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024.
D. K. MUSINGA, (P)
.................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. ole KANTAI
.................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M. GACHOKA, CIArb, FCIArb.
.................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR

Odera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Odera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Odera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Odera ((Suing in her Capacity as the Legal Representative and Administrator of the

For all that, the Motion should fail and be dismissed.

You might also like