Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELC 4963 (KLR)

Cheboiywo & 5 others v Chirchir & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 327 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 4963 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 July 2025
2,270 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 Nakuru court paused enforcement of a land judgment, but only after the losers paid Kshs. 2 million security and committed to strict appeal deadlines.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Nakuru Environment and Land Court (Ombwayo J) determined the Plaintiffs/Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 13th March 2025 seeking stay of execution of the court's judgment of 14th February 2025 - which ordered survey, subdivision and allocation of suit parcels according to members' shares of contribution ascertained by officials of Kyomutich Self Help Group - and, in the alternative, review of that judgment to give the Applicants first priority to purchase any extra portions they occupy. The Applicants, through the affidavit of Solomon Chirchir Tuwei, argued they had no notice of the judgment date, promptly filed a Notice of Appeal, faced officials harbouring grudges, and offered security. Respondents did not oppose a stay conditional on a deposit of Kshs. 2,000,000/= as security for costs, but opposed review, arguing a party cannot simultaneously appeal and seek review. The court applied Order 42 Rule 6(2), found no inordinate delay (application filed within a month of judgment), found substantial loss arguable, and noted the Applicants' willingness to give security. Balancing the appeal right against the successful litigant's fruits of judgment, the court granted stay on conditions: deposit of Kshs. 2,000,000/= within 21 days, and compilation and filing of a record of appeal within 60 days with the appeal pursued within 180 days, with automatic lapse on default. Review was not granted. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants demonstrated the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

Yes - application filed within a month of judgment, substantial loss alleged from fresh survey by officials alleged to harbor grudges, and Applicants willing to offer security; stay granted on conditions.

Reasoning

The court found the Notice of Appeal filed on 28th February 2025 and the application on 13th March 2025, both within a month, hence no inordinate delay. Substantial loss was predicated on a fresh survey by officials alleged to bear grudges. The Respondents did not oppose stay conditional on a security deposit. Balancing the Applicants' appeal rights against the successful litigant's fruits of judgment, the court granted a conditional stay with an automatic lapse clause.

p. 4
02

Whether the judgment should be reviewed to grant Applicants priority to purchase extra portions

Holding

Review was not granted; the court instead granted conditional stay of execution.

Reasoning

Although the Applicants sought review under Order 45 Rule 1 as an alternative, the court disposed of the matter through a conditional stay of execution. The Respondents argued, and the court's disposition reflects, that the appropriate remedy pending appeal was stay rather than review of a judgment under appeal.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution is discretionary and a successful litigant should not be denied the fruits of judgment as a practice
  • Conditions for stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2): substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 14th February, 2025 granted on conditions
  2. 2.Applicants to deposit Kshs. 2,000,000/= as security for costs in a fixed joint interest earning account in the names of both counsel within 21 days
  3. 3.Applicants to compile, file and serve a record of appeal within 60 days and move the Court towards finalization of the appeal within 180 days
  4. 4.Automatic lapse of stay if either condition not met within the fixed timelines
  5. 5.Each party to bear its own costs of the application
  6. 6.Prayer for review of the judgment not granted

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1)(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1

Cases cited (5)

  • Butt V Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
  • Consolidated Marine V Nampijja & Another
    Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1989 (Nairobi)
  • RWW V EKW
    [2019] eKLR
  • Gianfranco Manenthi & Another V Africa Merchant Assurance Company Ltd
    [2019] eKLR
  • Siegfried Busch vs MCSK
    [2013] eKLR
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court (judgment under appeal pending before Court of Appeal)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 (1) and (2) and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cheboiywo & 5 others v Chirchir & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 327 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 4963 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4963/eng@2025-07-03

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