Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedNotice of motion dated 26th October, 2022· [2025] KECA 1555 (KLR)

Teresa Wangechi Mugo & 1 other v Joshua Wambugu D Ngari

Court of Appeal
3 October 2025
1,505 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal stopped an eviction, letting a family stay on land they've occupied for 35 years while their adverse possession appeal is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, whose claim to land parcel Nyeri/Uasonyiro/145 by adverse possession had been rejected by the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nyeri and affirmed on appeal by the ELC, moved the Court of Appeal at Nyeri under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules for injunction restraining their eviction pending appeal, or alternatively stay of the decree for vacant possession. They asserted occupation since a 1987 sale agreement with the respondent's consent to transfer procured from the Land Control Board, over 35 years' possession, extensive development, and burial of the 1st applicant's late husband on the land. The respondent countered that the appeal raised only a factual question on computation of time and that the applicants occupied with his consent. Applying the established two-limb Rule 5(2)(b) test as stated in Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v. Tony Ketter & 5 others, the Court found the appeal arguable on the computation of the adverse possession period and the effect of the Land Control Board consent, and found that eviction would render a successful appeal nugatory given the applicants' long possession and developments. It granted an injunction restraining eviction pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, with costs to abide the outcome of the main appeal. This is an interlocutory decision and does not disturb the decisions below.

Key legal issues

#
01

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The appeal was arguable because the computation of the period for adverse possession was in dispute and the Land Control Board consent suggested the sale agreement may have been substantially performed

Reasoning

The court re-evaluated the facts and found that whether the trial court properly calculated when adverse possession began was a live question. The Land Control Board consent also raised the argument that the sale agreement had been substantially performed subject only to payment of the balance. These were not idle points but bona fide grounds suitable for full argument at the hearing of the appeal.

p. 3
02

Nugatory aspect of the intended appeal

Holding

The appeal would be rendered nugatory if the applicants, in possession for over 35 years with extensive developments, were evicted before the appeal was heard

Reasoning

The court accepted that the applicants had been in occupation for more than 35 years, had undertaken considerable developments, and that eviction before the appeal would render any successful appeal nugatory. The two limbs of Rule 5(2)(b) were therefore both satisfied.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • To obtain an order under Rule 5(2)(b), an applicant must demonstrate both that the intended appeal is arguable and that it would be rendered nugatory if the orders are not granted
  • An arguable appeal need not necessarily succeed; a single bona fide arguable ground suffices

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Orders of injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the applicants from the suit parcel of land pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court (ELC), affirming the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (inherent jurisdiction to grant orders pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Teresa Wangechi Mugo & 1 other v Joshua Wambugu D Ngari", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 26th October, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1555/eng@2025-10-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.