Njogu & 3 others (Suing as officials of Kakuzi-Kinyangi Mixed Organic Farmers - CBO) v Kakuzi Limited (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1297 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to pause enforcement of the land judgment because the applicants proved no loss and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
No substantial loss shown because the Applicants are not in occupation or possession of the suit land and have nothing of their own on it
The court relied on its earlier judgment which found no evidence of the Applicants' possession despite their claim of occupation since 1986. They admitted subdividing the land and erecting beacons but called no sufficient evidence of possession. They annexed no photographs showing structures or crops belonging to them on the land, so execution cannot cause them substantial loss.
Unreasonable delay
The application was filed expeditiously and this condition was satisfied
Judgment was delivered on 29-1-2025 and the motion was filed on 14-2-2025, a short interval the court found expeditious. This was the only one of the three conditions the Applicants satisfied.
Security for due performance of the decree
No security was offered; readiness and willingness to prosecute the appeal is insufficient
The supporting affidavit offered no deposit or other security. The court indicated that security would include a deposit in court of costs in the lower court and estimated appellate costs in case the appeal is dismissed. There was no such commitment by the Applicants.
Legal principles established
#- The three conditions for grant of a stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2) are conjunctive and all must be satisfied.
- An applicant not in occupation or possession of the suit land cannot claim substantial loss from execution.
- Readiness and willingness to prosecute an appeal does not amount to security for the due performance of the decree.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 14-2-2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njogu & 3 others (Suing as officials of Kakuzi-Kinyangi Mixed Organic Farmers - CBO) v Kakuzi Limited (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1297 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 14-2-2025 (suit judgment delivered 29-1-2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1297/eng@2025-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.