George Ole Sangui, Shokoret Ole Setabau, Francis Patu Simpanoi, Oleku Ole Punywa, Sipale Ole Komeyan, Ntika Ole Roka, Dopoi Ole Nchoshoi, Ateti Ole Nkume, Terere Ole Maloi, Kudate Ole Amboni, Lengututi Ole Lesiri & Kooli Ole Karatina Mututua v Kedong Ranch Limited [2015] KEELC 603 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA

AT  NAKURU

CIVIL  SUIT   NO 21 OF  2010

GEORGE  OLE SANGUI …………...……..…..1ST  APLICANT

SHOKORET  OLE  SETABAU……......…..…2ND  APPLICANT

FRANCIS  PATU SIMPANOI……...….……..3RD APPLICANT

OLEKU OLE PUNYWA………....……………4TH APPLICANT

SIPALE  OLE  KOMEYAN……....…..……….5TH  APPLICANT

NTIKA OLE ROKA…………...….…..……….6TH APPLICANT

DOPOI OLE  NCHOSHOI…..….…...………7TH  APPLICANT

ATETI OLE  NKUME…………….….……….8TH  APPLICANT

TERERE  OLE   MALOI……….….…………9TH  APPLICANT

KUDATE  OLE  AMBONI ………..…..……10TH  APPLICANT

LENGUTUTI  OLE LESIRI………...……….11TH APPLICANT

KOOLI OLE KARATINA  MUTUTUA….....12TH  APPLICANT

VERSUS

KEDONG  RANCH LIMITED……….....……….RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The application before me is that dated 9th February 2015. The applicants seek a stay of the judgment pending hearing of an intended application for stay pending   appeal before the court of Appeal. Mr Otieno for the applicants urged the application. The application is   opposed by Mr  Kadima  for the   respondent.

2. I have considered the application and the submissions of counsel. What the applicants want is to be granted an  interim  stay  pending the filing of  an application for stay  pending appeal before the Court of Appeal. The  applicants of course  have  under the  provisions of  order   42  Rule 6, leeway to obtain  stay  pending  appeal in this  court, but that is not what they want. They want to  pursue the  issue of stay  pending  appeal  before the Court of Appeal and  not this court, and what  they now ask,  is  only  an  interim  stay  as  they prepare their  application for consideration by the Court  of Appeal.

3. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Willis Evans Otieno who is a also counsel for the  applicants. Various matters of fact have been deponed which   in my view ought to have been deponed by the applicants themselves. There  are critical questions such  as  who is  in possession and what  loss  may  be suffered  if stay  is  not  granted that can only, in  my view, be  stated by the  applicants  themselves.   I am   therefore  of the  opinion that the  application is  not  properly  supported by  an  appropriate  affidavit.

4. I am not therefore persuaded that this is a fit case to grant the stay sought. I dismiss the application with costs.

5. The applicants can of course still apply to the Court   of Appeal for stay and they many pursue that avenue.

It is so ordered

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this  19th day of  February   2015

MUNYAO SILA

JUDGE

ENVIRONMENT  AND LAND COURT

AT  NAKURU

In presence  of  :-

Mr  Willis   Otieno for  applicant

Mr   Kadima  for  respondent

Emmanuel  Maelo  : CA

MUNYAO SILA

JUDGE

ENVIRONMENT  AND LAND COURT

AT  NAKURU