Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in judgment (Appellant's application dated 5th March, 2025)· [2025] KEELC 3556 (KLR)

British American Tobacco Limited v Mwita & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3556 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 April 2025
1,480 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, British American Tobacco Ltd, moved the Environment and Land Court by application dated 5th March, 2025 seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Chief Magistrate's Court delivered on 20th March 2024 in Chief Magistrate ELC Case No. E018 of 2024, and an interim injunction restraining the Respondents from entering upon, wasting, demarcating or alienating land parcel Bukira/Bwisaboka/301. The Appellant contended that the trial court cancelled its title without hearing it and later ruled, on 4th March 2025, that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction but declined to set aside its own judgment. The Respondents filed no response. The court identified a single issue: whether the Appellant met the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Relying on Mwangi v Mokaya and Vipingo Ridge Limited v Swalehe Ngonge Mpitta, the court held that an applicant must first seek stay in the trial court before approaching the appellate court. The Appellant admitted it had not done so, believing the trial court lacked jurisdiction; it had also admitted the trial court's jurisdiction in its draft defence, and the court held a party is bound by its pleadings. The injunction was refused because no change in the status of the land was proved and the relief had not been sought below. The application was struck out with costs to the Respondent, but in the interest of justice the court granted a fourteen-day temporary stay to enable the Appellant to file a proper application in the proper forum.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Appellant met the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(1)

Holding

The application failed because the Appellant did not first seek stay in the trial court, rendering the application premature and incompetent, though a 14-day temporary stay was granted to allow a proper application in the correct forum.

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6(1) permits the appellate court to consider stay, but the cited authorities require the applicant to first approach the trial court, which must pronounce itself one way or the other. The Appellant admitted it never moved the trial court for stay, believing the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. It also admitted jurisdiction in its draft defence. The application therefore could not stand.

p. 4
02

Whether the Appellant was entitled to a temporary injunction

Holding

The injunction was refused because no change in the status of the land since judgment was proved and the relief was never sought in the subordinate court.

Reasoning

The court held that although it possessed the power to grant interim injunctions, the Appellant did not prove the status of the land had changed since delivery of judgment. It further noted the relief was new, never sought below, and that the Appellant's own draft defence admitted the trial court's jurisdiction, binding it by its pleadings.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Before an applicant seeking stay pending appeal moves the appellate court, he or she must first apply to the trial court and the trial court must have pronounced itself on the application
  • A party is bound by its pleadings and cannot turn around to deny jurisdiction it admitted

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 5th March, 2025 is struck out with costs to the Respondent
  2. 2.A temporary stay of execution for only fourteen (14) days pending the filing of a proper application in the proper forum, in default the stay to lapse immediately afterwards
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate Court (ELC)
E018 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "British American Tobacco Limited v Mwita & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal 007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3556 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Appellant's application dated 5th March, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3556/eng@2025-04-28

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