Purity Wanjiku Muriuki v Susan Muthoni Muriuki & Faith Fides Karuana Kareithi [2020] KEHC 5223 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERUGOYA

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 38 OF  2015

PURITY WANJIKU  MURIUKI...............................APPELLANT

VERSUS

SUSAN  MUTHONI  MURIUKI.....................1ST RESPONDENT

FAITH FIDES  KARUANA  KAREITHI.....2ND  RESPONDENT

(Being An Appeal from  the  Judgment  and  the  Consequent  Order of  Hon.  E. O. Wambo - Senior Resident Magistrate Sitting vide Kerugoya  Chief  Magistrate  Succession Cause  No. 245  of  2018  Estate  of  Francis  Muriuki Muchira  - Deceased  Dated  and  Delivered  on 9-5-2019)

RULING

1. The application pending before this court is the one dated 3rd April, 2020 brought under a certificate of urgency seeking the following orders.

(a) An order of injunction do issue restraining the Respondents by  themselves ,  their  servants,  agents,  relatives  and/or  anybody else  acting  through  them  from  selling transferring or alienating plot  number  104  Kutus  Old  Town,  evicting  or  in any  other  way  interfering  with  the  appellant’s  occupation  of  plot  number  104  Kutus  Old  Town pending  the  hearing  and  determination  of  this  application.

(b) An order of injunction  do  issue  restraining  the  Respondents  by  themselves,  their servants,  agents,  relatives  and/or anybody else  acting  through  them  from  selling, transferring or alienating  plot  number  104  Kutus  Old  Town,  evicting  or  in  any  other way  interfering  with  the  appellant’s  occupation  of  plot  number  104  Kutus  Old  Town pending  the  hearing  and  determination  of  this  appeal.

(c) That the court be pleased to stay  any  further  proceedings  in Kerugoya  Chief  Magistrate’s  Court  succession  cause  number  245  of  2018  and  Kerugoya CMCC  No. 34  of  2020  until this  appeal  is  heard  and determined.

(d) Cost of this application be provided for.

2. The application is supported by the affidavit of  Purity  Wanjiku Muriuki  sworn  on  3rd  of  March, 2020  and  deposes  that  Plot number  104 Kutus  Old  Town  initially  belonged  to  Francis  Muriuki  Muchira  who  died on 2nd  January, 2014. The deceased was married to  one  Susan  Muthoni  in 1990’s,  she  met  him  and  became  lovers.

3. Later  in  1998,  she  got  married  to  him and  they  established  their  matrimonial  home  at  Kutus  at  Plot  Number  104  Kutus  Old  Town.  He cohabited with  the  deceased  until  he  died. The  burial  committee  recognized  that the  deceased  had  two  wives. That  she  had  one  child with  the deceased by  name  Stephen Mithamo. She has  been  living  on  the  said  plot. That  despite  the  knowledge  of  the  1st  respondent that  she  was  her  co-wife  she filed  Kerugoya  High  Court  No. 489  of  2014  and  she  did  not  disclose  her  existence. Later  she  obtained  letters  of  administration which  was  later  confirmed.

4. On learning of  the  Succession  cause,  she  filed  an  application for  revocation  of Grant  which  was  referred  to  the  Lower  court  and  became  Kerugoya  Succ. Cause No. 285 of  2018.

5. The  Court  heard  the case  and  held  that  she  was not  a  wife and  dismissed  the  case. She aggrieved with  the  finding  of  the  Trial  magistrate  and  has  filed  an  appeal  in  this  court.

6. It  is  her  contention  that,  she  had  a  good  case  with  chances  of  success as  the  court did  not  analyze what  constitutes  a  marriage, and  in  what  circumstances  a  presumption  of  marriage  can  arise.

7. That she will also  urge  the court  to  make  a  finding  as  to  whether  the  lower  court  could  hear  a  case for  revocation  of a  grant  issued  by  the  High  Court.

8. That the  1st  Respondent  in  an  effort  to  frustrate  her  transferred  the  plot  where  she  lives  at  Kutus  to  one Fides  Karuana  Kareithi  the  2nd  Respondent herein  and  yet  the  deceased  had  several  other  properties.

Upon  filing  the  appeal  she  filed  an  application  for  stay  of prosecution  and of  further  proceedings  pending the  hearing  of  the  appeal.

9. That the 2nd  Respondent  filed  an  application  that  she  be  evicted  from  Plot  number  104 Kutus  Old  Town  since  the  plot  had been  transferred  to  her. On  12th  March, 2020  both  applications  were  dismissed.

10. That  the  Respondent  has  proceeded to file  Kerugoya  CMCC  No. 34 of  2020 seeking  for  orders  that  she  be  evicted  from  the  plot, and  she  has  filed  an  application  that  she  be  restrained  from  entering  into  the  plot  or  collecting  rent  from  the  tenants.

11. It  is  her  contention  that at  the  time  the  2nd  Respondent  had  the plot  transferred  to  her,  she  knew or  had  the  means  to  know  that  she  was  in  occupation  and  she  was  expected to  do  due  diligence  by  making  enquiries  from  her  and the  neighbors  as  to  what  interest  she  has  over  the  plot  and  she  can therefore  not  claim  to  be  a  bonafide  purchaser.

12. That she should not be evicted until the courts makes a determination as to whether herself, and her son are  dependants. She pleads with the court to grant the  orders  sought.

1ST RESPONDENTS’

The 1st Respondent Susan  Muthoni  Muriuki opposed  the  application  and  I  filed  an  affidavit  sworn  on  4th  of  May, 2020. Her  contention  is  that,  the  applicant  has  not  disclosed what  she  has  done  to  warrant  been  restrained  and  court  orders  are  not  made  in  vain.

13. That she constructed Plot number. 104 Kutus with her husband from the produce of Coffee which  her  children  were picking  and the  construction  is  the  fruit  of  her  sweat.

14. That the  applicant failed  to  proof  her  status  in  her  husband’s  estate  and  cannot  be allowed  to  take  occupation  of  the  same. She contends that the  applicant  was  not  the  wife of  her  deceased husband  and  that  the  appellant  did  not  annex  the  memorandum  of appeal  to  her  application  to  show her  on  what  grounds  she  is  appealing  from  and  there  is  nothing  to  stay  from  the Judgment  of  E.O.  Wambo delivered on 9th May, 2019.

The applicant had sought an application for stay of execution but the same  was  dismissed.

15. It  is  further  contended that  her  application  for  injunction  is  meant  to  mislead  the  court  as to  real  status  quo  on  the  ground  and  the application  has  been  brought  with  undue  delay.

16. It  is  her  contention  that  she  is  the  legal  wife of  late  Francis  Muriuki Muchira  and  legal  administrator  of  his  estate.  Her succession cause was  completed  and  the ground  was  confirmed  and she  was  awarded  plot  number  104  Kutus. She later sold the Plot  to  Faith Fides Karuana  and  she  took  possession  of  the  plot.

She contends that the Registered owner of  the  plot cannot  be  restrained  from  utilizing her  plot.

17. She further depones that Faith Fides  Karuana  filed  Chief  Magistrate  Civil  Case  No. 34  of  2020  and  restrained  the  applicant from collecting  the rent  from  the  plot.

18. She further depones  that  the  applicant  had  filed  Civil  case number  11. 2015 at Wang’uru  Court whereby  she  admitted  that, the 2nd Respondent had  taken  over  the  plot  and  she  had  not  applied  for  an  order  of  injunction  and  the  suit  has  been  stayed.

19. She  further depones  that  the  applicant does  not  stand  to  suffer  any  loss as  accounts  will be  taken  and  she  cannot  seek  to benefit  from  what  is  already  is  belonging  to  another  person.

20. She  avers that,  the  applicant  vacated  the Plot  and  only  goes  to  the  plot  to incite  tenants against  allowing the  rightful  owner  to  take  possession.

She prays  that  the  application  be  dismissed.

THE  2ND RESPONDENT:  FAITH FIDES KARUANA KAREITHI

She has opposed  the  application  and  has  filed  a  replying  affidavit sworn  on 4th  May, 2020. Her contention is  that she  bought  Plot  Number. 104 Kutus from the 1st Respondent after  the  Grant  was  confirmed.

21. That  she  has  never  been  served  with  a  Memorandum  of  Appeal  and  it  almost  one  year  since  it  was  filed and  it  is  only meant as  a delaying  tactic. She  contends  that,  the  appeal  has  not been  admitted and  hence  the  delay  and  the  order  cannot  be  available  to  her  at  this  stage  as  the  appeal  has  not  been  admitted.  She had filed  an  application seeking  to  evict  the  applicant,  but  the  application was  dismissed.

22. That  the applicant cannot seek for orders not be evicted from  the  land  in  this  suit.

23. That  the  orders  would  be  in  conflict  with the  orders  issued  in  Civil  Case  number.  34  of  2020 in  The  Magistrate’s  Court  where  an  order  of eviction  was  issued.

24. She contends that she is an innocent purchaser without notice of any dispute, and that she is protected UnderSection 93 of The Law of Succession Act.  Section 93 (1) ofTheLaw of Succession Act provides;

“A transfer of any  interest in immovable or  movable  property  made  to  a  purchaser either  before  or  after  the  commencement  of  this  Act  by  a  person  to  whom representation has been granted shall be valid  notwithstanding  any  subsequent revocation  or variation of the  grant  either  before  or  after  the commencement  of  this  Act. “

25. That it is not true that the transfer was done fraudulently.

26. That the application lacks merit and ought to be dismissed. The parties agreed to canvass the application by way of written submissions.

For the applicant submissions were filed by  Maina  Kagio  Advocates:

He submits that the application has merits.

27. That this court has jurisdiction to entertain any application and determine any disputes under this Act, and to  pronounce  such  decrees  and  to  make such  orders  as  may  be  expedite.

28. That Rule 73 of The Probate  and  Administration  Rules,  It  is  provided:

“Nothing in this rules shall limit or otherwise affect the  inherent  powers of  the court  to  make  such  orders  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  ends  of  justice  or  to  prevent abuse of  the  process  of the  court.”

29. That the applicant has all along been on the Plot in dispute and the question is on what basis she is there?

What the court had to determine  is:

- Whether the applicant and her son were dependants of the deceased and therefore entitled to get a share of the properties left behind by the  deceased.

30. He submits that the appeal is not frivolous and raises issues worth this court’s consideration. He relies on Order 42 Rule 15 of Civil Procedure Rules which provides

15 (i) “When a memorandum of appeal is lodged, the court  to  which such  appeal is  preferred shall  send notice  of  appeal  to the  court  from whose decree  the  appeal  is  preferred.

(2) The court receiving such  notice  shall  send with  all  practicable  dispatch  all  material  papers  in  the  suit,  or such  papers  as  may be specially  called  for  by  the  court  to  which such appeal  is  preferred.

(3) Either party  may  on  application  and  upon  payment  of  the  requisite  charges  obtain  copies  of  any  such papers  as  aforesaid.”

31. He  contends  that  there  is  no legal requirement  that before the proceedings  are  typed  and  the file  forwarded  to  the high  court  for  purposes  of  rejection  or admission  of  the  appeal  the  appellant should  have  paid  for  the  proceedings  or have  served  the  memorandum of  appeal  to  the  respondents  Order 42  Rule  12  of the  Civil  Procedure Rules  refers.

32. That the  contention  by  the 2nd  Respondent  that  the  remedy for  the  applicant  lies in  the  Environment  and  Land  court  is  not  true  as  that  court  cannot  determine  issues  of  revocation  of  grant  and  sharing  of properties  left  behind by  the  deceased  person,  and  therefore  the  appeal is  properly  before  this  court.

33. That the 2nd respondent was  not  a  bonafide  purchaser,  she  never  conducted  due  diligence.

34. That  the  2nd  respondent  cannot  hide  behind  Section  93  of  The  Law  of  Succession  Act,  since  the  said  provision  cannot  sanitize  an  illegality  or  be  used  to  disinherit rightful  beneficiary  from  her  share.

35. He  submits  that  the  contention  by  the 1st Respondent  in  paragraph  3  of  her  replying  affidavit  that  she  does  not  understand what  she is  to be  restrained  from,  is  untrue  as  the  orders  sought  in  the  application  are  self-explanatory.

36. The allegation that,  the  2nd  respondent  took  occupation  of  the  plot upon  purchase  are  not  true  as  they  have  not  deponed  that  she  is  in  occupation.

37. If  that  were  the  position, there  would  have  been no  need  for  the  2nd  respondent  to file  for  a suit  seeking  to  have  the  applicant  evicted  from  the  suit  plot.

38. He submits that  the  status  quo  at  the  time  of  filing  the  Succession  cause  should  be  maintained,  been  that the  applicant was and  is  in  occupation of  the  suit plot  exclusively.

39. That there  is  need  to  preserve  the  property,  pending  the  hearing  and  determination  of  the  appeal.

For the  1st  Respondent  Submissions  were  filed  by;  Anne  Thungu  &  Company  Advocates.

They  submitted  that  the  application  is  brought  under  Order 42  Rule  6 (6) of  The  Civil  Procedure  Rules and  the test  applied in  the  exercise  of  its  discretion  in  regard  for  application for injunctions pending  appeal  is  in  the  case  of; PATRICIA  NJERI  &  3 OTHERS  -VS-  NATIONAL MUSEUMS  OF  KENYA  ( 2004)  eKLR which  was  quoted  with  approval by Mureithi  J  in Julius  Musili  Kiunga -vs-  K.C. B  Limited  &  Another.

(2012) eKLR. It was  stated;

“ The Appellants did, however, pray  ( in  the  alternative)  for  an  order  of  injunction  pending  appeal.  There  was  no  dispute  that  the  court  can,  in  a  proper  case  grant  an injunction  pending appeal. What  are  the principles  that  guide the  court  in dealing with  such an  application?

In  the  Venture  Capital  case ( venture  capital  and  Credit  Ltd _vs-  Consolidated  Bank  of  Kenya  Ltd  Civil  Application  No.  Nairobi  349  of  2003  (UR)  the  Court  of Appeal said  that an  order for  injunction  pending appeal  is  a discretionary matter.  The  discretion  must,  however,  be “exercised  judicially  and  not  in  a  whimsical  or  arbitrary fashion.”This discretion  is guided  by  certain  principles  some  of  which are as  follows;

(a) The discretion  will not be  exercised  against  an  Applicant  whose  appeal is  frivolous  (  See  Madhupaper  International  Limited  -vs- Kerr( 1985)  KLR  840  which  cited  Venture  capital).  The applicant must state that a reasonable argument can be put  forward  in  support  of  his  appeal ( J. K. Industries -vs-  KCB  1982 -88) KLR  1088 (also cited  in  Venture  Capital.

(b) The discretion should  be  refused  where  it  would  inflict greater hardship  that it  would  avoid  ( See  Madhupaper (supra)

(c) The Applicant must  show that  to  refuse the  injunction  would  render  his  appeal nugatory  (See  Butt  -vs-  Rent  Restriction  Tribunal ( 1982)  KLR  417 ( cited  also  in  Venture  Capital).

(d) The Court  should  also be  guided  by  the  principles  in  Giella  -vs-  Cassman  Brown  &  Company Limited  ( 1973) EA 358  as  set  out  in  the  case  of: Shitukha  Mwamodo  &  Others  ( 1986)  KLR  445  ( also  cited  in Venture  Capital) “  See  also:  Mukoma  -vs-  Abuoga  ( 1988)  KLR  645.

Starting  with  the  well-known principles  of:  Giella  -vs-  Cassman  Brown  &  Co.  Limited  ( 1973)  EA  358  the Applicants  herein have  established  a  prima  facie  case.  A prima facie case  was  described  in  Mrao  Ltd  -vs-  First  American Bank  of Kenya  Ltd &  2 Others  ( 2003)  eklr.  The Court stated:-

“  The  power  of  the  Court  in  an  application  for  an  interlocutory  injunction  is  discretionary.  Such discretion is judicial.  And as is always the case  judicial  discretion  has  to be  exercised  on  the  basis  of  the  law  and  evidence…..

So  what is  a  prima  facie  case ?  I would  say in  civil  cases  it  is  a  case  in  which  on  the material presented  to  the  court  a  tribunal properly  directing itself will  conclude  that  there  exists  a  right which has  apparently  been  infringed  by  the  opposite  party as  to  call for  an  explanation  or  rebuttal from  the  latter. “

40. It is further  submitted  that  the  1st  respondent does  not  know  why  orders are been  sought  against  her,  and  yet  she  is  not  in  occupation  of  the  suit  land.

41. That  the  court  is  been  asked  to  act  in  vein,  and  issue  orders  against parties who  are  not  affected  by  the  orders  sought. He has relied  on:  Mis. Civil  Cause  No. 1 of  2004 ( O.S)  In  the  Matter of  an  application  Under  Section  38of The  Limitation Of  Actions  Act  and  In  The Matter  of  L.R. No.  33883 Charles  Matheka -vs-  Shacho  Industries  Limited,  where  it  was  stated more  importantly,  interim  injunction pending for  more  application  was  not  sought  immediately after  the Judgment  was  delivered.

42. Again though the application for Injunction was filed under Certificate of Urgency, certification in  that  behalf  does  not  appear to have been  sought  nor  was  Interim  Injunction sought  pending  hearing  of  the  application.

43. That been  the  position,  there  was  nothing  lawfully to  prevent  the  defendant from  disposing  off the  suit  property  after  Judgment  in  its  favour was  delivered…………..”

44. It is submitted that; the applicant  has  not demonstrated  that she  has  an  arguable appeal, there  is  no  proof  of  service of  memorandum  of appeal, and  no  steps  to prosecute  the  appeal.

45. It is further submitted that, the order of Injunction is sought in undue delay, and they urge the court to find that  the  delay  in  seeking  the  Injunction  orders  shows  that  there  is  no  urgency,  and  delay  disentitles her  from  getting the  orders  sought.

On the issue of status quo, it is submitted that the applicant is not in possession of the plot.

46. It  is submitted that since  the  2nd  respondent  is  already In  possession  of  the  plot,  it  will create  great  hardship  to  her  as  the  registered owner  of the possession to be  restrained  from  collecting  rent, and  deeming  with  the  plot the  way  she  deems  fit.  There is a danger of the tenants running the plot down. It is also  submitted  that, there  is  a  court  decision in  CMCC  No.  34 of  2020 and  the  applicant  was  restrained  from  collecting  rent  from  the  Plot.

47. It  is  further submitted  that  the  applicant  has  not  come  to  court  with  clean  hands  as  it  is  not  denied  that  the  applicant  vacated  the  plot  and  only  comes  to  ground  to  incite  the  tenants  against  allowing  the  rightful  owner  to  take  possession.

48. The Applicant  is  seeking  discretionary  orders  of  Injunction  which  are  equitable  orders. In  the  Case  of ;  Giella  -vs-  Cassman  Brown the  court  stated  that;

“ where  the  court  is  in doubt  it  will  determine  the  case  on  the  balance  of  convenience.”

She  submits  that, the  balance  of convenience  is  in  favour  of  dismissing the  application.

49. It  is  also  submitted  that  the  applicant  does  not  stand  to  suffer  any  loss  as  the  accounts  will  be taken  and  she  should  not  try  to  benefit from  what  already belongs  to  another  person.

50. The  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  what  loss  she  will  suffer, if  the  orders  are  not  granted, if she  is  allowed  to  continue  to living  and  controlling  the  tenants  in  the  premises,  she  will be  interfering  with  the  property  rights  of  a  registered  owner.

51. That  the  orders  sought  are  oppressive  and  this  court  is  been  asked  to  perpetuate  an illegality by  aiding  a  trespasser  and a  tenant  to  intermeddle with  the  proprietary  right  of a  registered  owner.

52. It  is  also  submitted  that no  reason  have  been  advanced  for  the  court  to  order  a  stay  for  other  suits  In  CMCC  No. 245 of  2018,  and Kerugoya  CMCC  No. 34  of  2020.  The  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  that  she  has  an  appeal which  will  be  rendered nugatory.

53. That the  Application  is without  merits.

For the 2nd Respondent,  Submissions were  filed  by Ikahu Ngangah  Advocates

He  submits  that  the  2nd  Respondent  was  a  purchaser  without  notice  of  any  defects  to  the  Title  as  all  processes  had  been  undertaken.

54. That the 2nd respondent had filed an application dated  13th  June, 2019 for  eviction which  was  dismissed  on  the  application on  the  opposition  by  the  applicant  herein.

55. That upon dismissal the 2nd  Respondent  filed Civil  Case no.  34 of  2020  at  the  Chief  Magistrate’s  court  Kerugoya,  restraining  any  interference of  the plot  at  Kutus  No. 104 and  an  order dated  24th  March, 2020  was  granted,  and  the applicant  complied  with  the  order and  has  never  been  appealed  against,  and  still remains  in force. That  there  has  never  been  any  order of stay  of  execution,  of  the  Grant  or proceedings in  the  matter.  That  the  2nd respondent  is  protected Under  Section  93  of The  Law  of Succession  Act  and  he  prays  that  the  application  be  dismissed.

ANALYSIS  AND  DETERMINATION

I have  considered the  application, the  affidavits  and  the  submissions  filed  by  the  parties.

The  issue  which  arises  for  determination  is  Grant  of  Injunction.

The  Law on  Granting  of  Interlocutory injunction  is  set  out  on  Order  40  Rule  1 (a)  ( b) of  The  Civil  Procedure  Rules. It  provides:

“ where  in  any  suit  it  is  proved  by  affidavit  or  otherwise:-

(a) any  property  in  dispute  in  a  suit  is  in  danger  of been  wasted,  damaged  or  alienated by  any  party  to  the  suit,  or  wrongfully  sold  in  execution  of a decree  or

(b) the  defendant  threatens  or  intends  to  remove  or dispose  of  his property  in  circumstances,  affording reasonable  possibilities that  the  plaintiff  will  or  may  be obstructed  or  delayed  in  the  execution of  any  decree  that  may  be  passed  against  the  defendant  in  the  suit the court  may, by  order  grant  a  temporary  injunction  to  restrain  such  act  or make  such  other  order  for  the  purpose  of;

staying and  preventing the  wasting,  damaging, alienation,  sale,  removal or  disposition  of  the  property  as  the  court  thinks fit  until  the disposal  of  the  suit,  or  until  further  orders.”

56. The conditions for consideration in granting an injunction has  been  well  settled in  the  case  of; Giella  -vs- Cassman Brown  & Company  Limited  ( 1973)  EA 358where  the  court  expressed  itself  on  the  conditions a  party  must  satisfy for the  court  to grant  an  interlocutory  injunction.

“First an applicant must show a prima facie case with probability  of  success.

Secondly an  interlocutory  injunction  will  not  normally  be  granted  unless the  applicant might otherwise  suffer irreparable  injury  which would  not  adequately  be compensated by  an  award  of  damages.

Thirdly, if the  court  is  in  doubt  it  will  decide  an  application on a  balance  of  convenience.”

57. The circumstances for consideration before granting a temporary Under Order 40 (1) of The  Civil  Procedure  Rules,  requires  a  proof  that  any  property  in  dispute  in  a  suit is  in  danger of  been  wasted,  damaged  or  alienated  by any  party  to  the  suit  or wrongfully  sold  in  execution  of  a decree,  or  that  a defendant  threatens  or  intends  to  remove or dispose  of  the  property. The court in such situations is enjoined to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.

58. In the instant case there is no doubt that the suit property is in danger of been alienated as the  2nd  respondent  does  not  deny  that it  has  bought  the  land  in  dispute.

59. The applicant has filed this appeal arising from a Succession cause, where she was claiming the suit property as a dependant that is; the wife of the deceased. She was dissatisfied with the decision of the  lower court  and  hence  she  has  filed  the  Appeal  to  this  court.

60. There is no dispute that the court can in proper cases grant an injunction pending appeal.  The court exercises discretion.  The applicant has filed a Memorandum of Appeal.  Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that every appeal from the sub-ordinate court to the High court shall be filed within 30 days.  Order 42 rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rulesprovides that when a Memorandum of Appeal is lodged, the court shall send notice of appeal to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred.  The appeal is filed upon filing a Memorandum of Appeal.

61. From the submissions by both parties and the averments in the affidavit the issues can only be determined by this court upon hearing the appeal.  There has been a multiplicity of suits in the lower court as deponed by the parties.  The dispute is far from over in view of this appeal.  On the issue as to whether the applicant has a prima facie case, the applicant has stated that she had lived on the plot with her husband.  There is a determination by a court with competent jurisdiction that she is not a wife and the decision has not been set aside.  The plot was sold after the grant was confirmed.  The plot has now changed hands as the 2nd respondent is now the registered owner.  The applicant has therefore not established a prima facie case with chances of success.  Secondly there was unreasonable delay in filing this application.  The balance of convenience does not tilt in facour of the applicant.  Equity aids the vigilant not the indolent.

62. The second consideration is whether the court should order stay of proceedings.  Order 42 rule b(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that no appeal shall operate as a stay of execution or proceedings except as the court may order.  The court is called upon to exercise discretion to order stay.  It is trite that the discretion must be exercised judiciously.  This appeal arises from the proceedings in a succession cause.  Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules gives the court discretion to make such orders as would be necessary for the ends of justice.  It provides:-

“Nothing in these Rules shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as maybe necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.”

63. The Rule gives the court wide powers to make such orders as would be necessary for the ends of justice.

64. In this matter the applicant has failed to bring the application within the ambit of Order 40 rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules and the principles for the grant of an injunction as laid down in the case of Giella –v- Cassman Brown (supra).  I however find that there is need to order that the status quo be maintained and all the proceedings in the Lower court be stayed in view of this appeal as the High Court takes precedence.

65. I order that prayers (b) and (c) on the application are declined.  I grant prayer (d) on the application and further order that the status quo be maintained so as to ensure  that the appeal is not rendered nugatory.  I make no orders as to costs.

Dated at Kerugoya this 29th  Day of May 2020

L. W. GITARI

JUDGE