Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (arising from Isiolo CMC No. 12 of 2018)· [2025] KEELC 915 (KLR)

Kenya Airports Authority v Shabure & another (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 915 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (or High Court exercising that jurisdiction) - stated only as 'the court' before a Judge
12 February 2025
2,140 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to pause a land judgment because the applicant filed for a stay before actually filing any appeal — and waited nearly two years to act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant moved the court by application dated 21st December 2023 seeking a stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Chief Magistrate's Court (Isiolo CMC No. 12 of 2018, delivered 24th May 2022) and an extension of time to file and serve an appeal out of time. The 1st Respondent, whose land was compulsorily acquired without compensation, opposed the application on grounds of inordinate delay and prejudice. The court framed two issues: first, whether it had jurisdiction to stay execution where no appeal existed, and second, whether the Applicant was entitled to extension of time. On the first issue, the court held that a stay of execution pending appeal can only issue in an existing appeal; the Order 42 Rule 6(4) exception applies only to intended appeals to the Court of Appeal upon filing a Notice of Appeal, not to appeals from the subordinate court, and the application was therefore filed in a vacuum. On the second issue, applying the Supreme Court's principles in Salat, County Executive of Kisumu and Nairobi Bottlers, and Court of Appeal authority, the court found the Applicant had not isolated or explained the delay of 1 year and 8 months after the Section 79G window lapsed, exhibited indolence and slovenliness, and failed to demonstrate sufficient cause. The 1st Respondent's prejudice under Article 40(3) outweighed the Applicant's interest, and the application was defeated by laches. The application was dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent only, on 12th February 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to grant stay where no appeal exists

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction to stay execution pending an intended appeal from a subordinate court where no appeal has been filed.

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6(1) presupposes an existing appeal; the exception under Rule 6(4) applies only to appeals to the Court of Appeal where a Notice of Appeal has been filed. Since the intended appeal here is from the subordinate court, Rule 6(4) is inapplicable and the application was filed in a vacuum.

p. 2
02

Extension of time to appeal out of time

Holding

Extension refused: no period of delay isolated, no credible reasons offered, and the Applicant was indolent; prejudice to the 1st Respondent outweighed the Applicant's interest.

Reasoning

Applying the Supreme Court's Salat principles and Court of Appeal authority, the Applicant failed to account for a delay of 1 year and 8 months after the Section 79G window lapsed, and the 1st Respondent, whose land was compulsorily acquired without compensation, would suffer prejudice under Article 40(3).

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for stay of execution pending appeal can only be filed in an existing appeal, except where a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal has been filed.
  • Extension of time is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, accounting for delay with credible reasons and sufficient cause.
  • Equity does not aid the indolent; laches defeats late applications.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 21st December 2023 is dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent only

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6(4)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of KenyaSection 79G
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 48
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 10, 27 and 159(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 40(3)

Cases cited (15)

  • Kenya Shell Ltd vs Benjamin Kerage Kibiru and another
    [1996] eKLR
  • James Wangalwa vs Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    (2012) eKLR
  • RWW vs EKW
    [2019] eKLR
  • Arun C. Sharma vs Raikundalia & Company Advocates
    [2016] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Korir Salat vs Independent and Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 6 others
    Civil Application No. 16 of 2014 [2014] eKLR
  • County Executive of Kisumu and others vs the County Government of Kisumu and others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Nairobi Bottlers Ltd vs Mark Ndumia Ndung'u
    (2023) KESC
  • Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo vs Paul Kipkorir Kibet
    [2018] eKLR
  • Paul Musili Wambua vs Attorney General
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kimani vs Njoroge
    [2022] KECA
  • Postal Housing Cooperative Ltd vs The Ministry of Sports Culture and Social Services and Others
    (2024) KECA
  • Habo Agencies Ltd vs Wilfred Odhaimbo Misingo
    {2015] eKLR
  • Machira vs the East African Standard Ltd
    [2002] eKLR
  • Chief Land Registrar and others vs Nathan Tirop Koech and others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Said Sulleim Gheilton & another vs the Commissioner of Lands [sued through the Attorney General
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Isiolo
Isiolo CMC No. 12 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya; Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Airports Authority v Shabure & another (Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 915 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (arising from Isiolo CMC No. 12 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/915/eng@2025-02-12

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