REPUBLIC vs THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR,THE DIRECTOR OF LAND ADJUDICATION & SETTLEMENT & THE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR Ex Parte DANIEL OLE KEIYUA TIEPON,SAMUEL PANYAKO SAKAJA,PARAOINKAN OLOMERA,OLE TUNAI KISIKO and LOLEINGABWAL,WILLIAM PARSHOIYO PUYA,MICH [2000] KECA 227 (KLR)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM:  TUNOI, LAKHA & O'KUBASU, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 306 OF 2000 (147/2000 UR)

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL  REVIEW AND FOR ORDERS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION

IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA

IN THE MATTER OF:THE LAND ADJUDICATION ACT, CHAPTER 284 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA

IN THE MATTER OF:THE REGISTERED LAND ACT, CHAPTER 300 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA

IN THE MATTER OF:THE REPUBLIC

VERSUS

EX-PARTE

DANIEL OKE KEIYUA TIEPON …........................................................................  1ST APPLICANT

SAMWEL PANYAKO SAKAJA ….......................................................................  2ND APPLICANT

PARAOINKAN OLOLMERA ................................................................................  3RD APPLICANT

OLE TUNAI KISIKO ..............................................................................................  4TH APPLICANT

THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ........................................................................ 1ST RESPONDENT

THE DIRECTOR OF LAND ADJUDICATION & SETTLEMENT.......................2ND RESPONDENT

THE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR, TRANS-MARA DISTRICT.....................3RD RESPONDENT

AND

LOLEINGABWAL

WILLIAM PARSHOYIO PUYA

MICHAEL OLODIRR SEME

MOYOI GROUP RANCH .............................................. INTERESTED PARTIES/APPLICANTS

(Application from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon. Lady Justice Ang'awa) dated 20th July, 2000

in

H.C.MISC.CIVIL CASE NO. 1680 OF 1999) ***********************

RULING OF THE COURT

This is an application seeking a stay, underrule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of this Court, of a decision of the superior court given on 30 July 1999. The grounds on which a stay may be granted are now well settled: First, the applicant must satisfy us that the intended appeal is arguable. The only complaint urged before us is that the applicant was not granted an opportunity to be heard. But this is not so. It is clear to us that the applicant was given an opportunity but the applicant did not avail himself of this opportunity. The learned judge was plainly right and we are not persuaded that the intended appeal is arguable. Secondly, the applicant must show that unless restrained the appeal would be rendered nugatory. This the applicant has not shown. In our judgment, therefore the application fails and is dismissed with costs.

Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 6th day of December, 2000.

P.K. TUNOI

..................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

A.A. LAKHA

.................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

E. O'KUBASU

.................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a true copy of the original.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR