Gathaga & another v Mureithi & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 86 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 2907 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kitale Environment and Land Court refused to pause execution of a land judgment because the applicants waited almost two years, offered no security, and the decree had already been fully enforced.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Unreasonable delay in bringing the stay application
The application filed almost two years after judgment, with no plausible explanation beyond a letter requesting proceedings, was brought after unreasonable delay
Judgment was delivered on 19/12/2022 and the notice of appeal filed on 10/1/2023, but the stay application was only filed on 18/12/2024. The applicants attached only a letter requesting the judgment and proceedings and offered no plausible explanation for the roughly two-year gap, failing the timeliness requirement of Order 42 Rule 6.
Security and substantial loss
The applicants offered no security and demonstrated no substantial loss; submissions cannot substitute for pleading security in the application
Security must be sufficient to guarantee due performance of the decree, as per Arun C. Sharma. The applicants offered nothing beyond a reference in submissions, which are persuasive but not pleadings. They also failed to state what substantial loss they would suffer or how the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and execution is a lawful process that does not amount to substantial loss.
Whether anything remained to be stayed
The decree had been fully implemented - survey done, waterway opened and boundaries fixed - so there was nothing left to stay
The respondents executed the decree: the surveying and fixing of the waterway was done between 11/12/2024 and 8/1/2025 in the presence of all parties, and boundaries for the plots were fixed. The applicants were informed of the pending implementation and did not deny it, and did not identify what partial implementation had occurred and what remained.
Legal principles established
#- A stay of execution should only be granted where the applicant has shown sufficient cause under the three prerequisites of Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Execution is a lawful process that does not by itself amount to substantial loss
- A court cannot stay orders that have already been executed; there must be orders capable of being stayed
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18/12/2024 is dismissed for want of merits with costs to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gathaga & another v Mureithi & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 86 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 2907 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2907/eng@2025-03-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.