Kiarie v Joreth Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 658 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 3439 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that filing an appeal doesn't automatically stop a judgment from being enforced, and ordered the transfer of disputed land to the plaintiff.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is merit in the plaintiff's notice of motion dated 17th December 2024 seeking leave for a new advocate to come on record and an order that the Deputy Registrar execute transfer documents in place of the defendants
- 2.Whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants' notice of motion dated 29th January 2025 satisfies the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
- 3.What orders should issue in the circumstances
Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants met the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
They did not. The court found the application hopeless and totally lacking merit because of inordinate delay (six years after judgment), failure to demonstrate substantial loss, and no security offered for due performance of the decree.
Order 42 Rule 6(2) requires substantial loss, absence of undue delay and security. The defendants conceded they saw no need to seek stay earlier because there was no threat of execution until the plaintiff applied to execute. The court treated the delay as evidence of intent to frustrate the plaintiff and held that an intended appeal alone does not warrant stay.
Whether the Deputy Registrar should be ordered to execute transfer documents in place of the defendants
Yes. Judgment having been delivered in favour of the plaintiff and no stay being in place, the court allowed the plaintiff's application and directed the Deputy Registrar to execute the transfer documents to enable registration of the plaintiff as proprietor of LR. No. 13330/47.
The court noted the former advocate inadvertently omitted to request the Deputy Registrar to sign the transfer forms, and that the defendants were bent on preventing the plaintiff's registration. Applying the overriding objective, and absent any stay orders, the court held the plaintiff should realize the fruits of his judgment.
Legal principles established
#- The pendency of an appeal does not automatically entitle a judgment debtor to a stay of execution; the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) must be demonstrated
- Where no orders staying judgment and decree exist, a successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The firm of Ms. Angote Lornah LLP granted leave to come on record for the plaintiff in place of Gichahi & Co. Advocates
- 2.The Deputy Registrar of the court ordered and directed to execute all necessary transfer documents in place of the defendants to enable the plaintiff be registered as proprietor of land parcel LR. No. 13330/47
- 3.Notice of motion dated 29th January 2025 dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/applicant
- 4.Plaintiff/applicant awarded costs of the notice of motion dated 17th December 2024
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rule 15, Order 42 Rule 6(2) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment and decree issued on 27th February 2019 pending appeal
The 2nd and 3rd defendants failed to demonstrate substantial loss, brought the application with inordinate delay (six years after judgment) and offered no security; stay is not automatic merely because an appeal has been lodged
Costs
Notice of motion dated 29th January 2025 dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/applicant; plaintiff/applicant also awarded costs of the notice of motion dated 17th December 2024
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
While they have a right to appeal, and without any order setting aside the judgment found in favour of the plaintiff/applicant, stay of execution is not automatic just for the sole reason that an appeal lies before the superior court.
The Deputy Registrar of this court is hereby ordered and directed to execute all the necessary transfer documents in place of the defendants to enable the plaintiff be registered as a proprietor of land parcel LR. No. 13330/47.
There being no orders staying the judgment and the decree, I see no reason why the plaintiff/applicant ought not to experience the fruit of his judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory dates for delivery of the 2019 judgment: paragraph 18 states judgment was delivered on 27th January 2019 while paragraphs 3, 4, 7, 8 and 22, and the stay application, state 27th February 2019
The case number of the suit itself is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiarie v Joreth Limited & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 658 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 3439 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3439/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.