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 AppealDismissedNotice of motion dated 25th November 2025 (arising from Nairobi Environment and Land Court Petition No. E053 of 2022 – Tom Brown Limited & another v County Executive Committee Member in Charge of Planning & 2 others)· [2026] KECA 1219 (KLR)

Nova Realty Group Limited v Tom Brown Limited & 3 others

Court of Appeal
26 June 2026
1,295 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal refused to pause a land case because a party challenging a judge's recusal did not prove bias or serious harm.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Nova Reality Group Limited applied to the Court of Appeal, by notice of motion dated 25th November 2025, for a stay of proceedings before the Environment and Land Court pending its intended appeal against a ruling of Angote, J. dated 23rd October 2025. The learned judge had declined to recuse himself from Nairobi ELC Petition No. E053 of 2022 and dismissed the applicant's recusal motion. The applicant alleged that the judge had an undisclosed personal relationship with the 2nd respondent, the subject of a petition before the Judicial Service Commission, and argued that the judge failed to apply the objective test of reasonable apprehension of bias set out in the Rai case, contrary to the principle that justice must be seen to be done. The Court of Appeal (Tuiyott, Nduma Nderi and Lilan, JJ.A) restated the twin conjunctive requirements under rule 5(2)(b): an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay. While finding the bias-test ground arguable, the Court emphasised that stay of proceedings is granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. An applicant challenging a recusal refusal must demonstrate that in all probability the bias allegation is true, or that continued proceedings would cause irreversible or extremely onerous prejudice. Finding no such material, and noting any grievance could be remedied by appeal, the Court dismissed the motion with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents on 26th June 2026. The 2nd respondent's late replying affidavit was withdrawn; the Attorney General opposed by submissions only.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal on the recusal ruling is arguable

Holding

The ground that the judge failed to apply the objective test of reasonable apprehension of bias is not frivolous, satisfying the arguability limb.

Reasoning

The Court accepted that although the respondents questioned the appeal's prospects, the contention that the learned judge erred in failing to apply the objective test of reasonable apprehension of bias deserved further interrogation at a main hearing. The arguability threshold under rule 5(2)(b) is low and a single ground is sufficient, citing prior authority.

p. 3
02

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay of proceedings

Holding

No: the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances, as it did not demonstrate probable truth of the bias allegations or irreversible prejudice from the proceedings continuing before the same judge.

Reasoning

The Court held that the argument that proceedings will continue before a judge facing impartiality questions is a proverbial argument in all such applications and cannot, without more, justify stay. The applicant had to show probable truth of the bias allegation or irreversible, extremely onerous prejudice; neither was demonstrated, and any grievance could be remedied on appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for stay of proceedings under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules must meet twin conjunctive requirements: an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent stay.
  • Stay of proceedings is a discretionary power to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
  • An applicant seeking stay of proceedings to challenge a judge's refusal to recuse himself must demonstrate that in all probability the bias allegation is true, or that continued proceedings would cause irreversible or extremely onerous prejudice or hardship.
  • The threshold of arguability in rule 5(2)(b) applications is low; a single arguable ground suffices.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion dated 25th November 2025 seeking stay of proceedings
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court, Nairobi
Petition No. E053 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (stay of proceedings pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nova Realty Group Limited v Tom Brown Limited & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 25th November 2025 (arising from Nairobi Environment and Land Court Petition No. E053 of 2022 – Tom Brown Limited & another v County Executive Committee Member in Charge of Planning & 2 others). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1219/eng@2026-06-26

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