Lasoi (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of the Late Solomon Kipkorir Arap Lasoi) & 2 others v Cheruiyot & 10 others (Environment & Land Case 472 of 2016 & 54 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 315 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru paused the eviction only if the defendants deposited Kshs. 300,000 within 30 days, showing courts demand proof and security, not just promises.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants satisfied the Order 42 Rule 6 threshold for stay of execution pending appeal
The court found the application was filed timeously (judgment 11th October 2024, application 19th November 2024), that substantial loss was shown (eviction from land occupied for over ten years, with photographs of invasion before expiry of the 45-day vacate period), and the Applicants offered to abide security conditions; stay was granted conditional on a deposit of Kshs. 300,000/= in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days.
The court applied the three limbs of Order 42 Rule 6(2): no unreasonable delay, substantial loss, and security. On delay it found about five weeks reasonable. On substantial loss it held assertions alone are insufficient but accepted the Applicants' evidence of imminent eviction from land long occupied and the Plaintiffs' pre-expiry invasion. On security it accepted the offer to comply and imposed a Kshs. 300,000/= deposit as a sign of good faith, following Exclusive Mines Limited.
Whether mere assertions of substantial loss suffice
No; empirical or documentary evidence is required, though here the Applicants' evidence was accepted.
Relying on Samvir Trustee Limited v Guardian Bank Limited and Kenya Shell Limited v Kibiru, the court stressed that substantial loss is the cornerstone of a stay application and must be proved with adequate and proper evidence rather than taken at face value. The Applicants' deposition that the Plaintiffs invaded the land before expiry of the 45-day period, supported by photographs, satisfied this burden.
Legal principles established
#- Proof of substantial loss is the cornerstone of applications for stay of execution and must be proved, not merely asserted
- The purpose of a stay of execution is to preserve the subject matter so that a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory
- Imminent eviction following a judgment is not, by itself, proof of substantial loss; the court must balance the rights of the successful litigant and the aggrieved party
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicants do deposit Kshs. 300,000/= in a joint interest earning account of counsel on record for the Applicants and the Respondents within 30 days, failure to which the order lapses (in support of the stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 11th October 2024 pending the intended appeal)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending intended appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lasoi (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of the Late Solomon Kipkorir Arap Lasoi) & 2 others v Cheruiyot & 10 others (Environment & Land Case 472 of 2016 & 54 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 315 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/315/eng@2025-02-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.