Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedKisumu ELCA (Environment and Land Court Appeal) arising from Kisumu MCELC No. E007 of 2024· [2025] KEELC 5063 (KLR)

Owiti & another (Suing in their capacity as the officials of Obunge Youth Soccer Community Based Organization) v Imala & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E047 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5063 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
3 July 2025
2,402 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu refused to stay a judgment that dismissed community claims over disputed Obunga land, but froze all dealings with the property.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on the Appellants' Notice of Motion dated 18th June 2025 seeking stay of execution of a judgment delivered by Hon. G.N. Barasah, SRM on 16th June 2025 in Kisumu MCELC No. E007 of 2024. The lower court had declared that Kisumu Municipality/Block 4/162, used by the Obunga community for sports and public gatherings, was private property belonging to Kisumu Muslim Association, issued injunctions against the 4th and 5th Respondents, and dismissed the counterclaims including that of the Appellants, who had been joined as interested parties. The application, anchored on Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Articles 159 and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, was opposed by the Association, which maintained the property was alienated in 1919 as a Mohamedan cemetery and that the Appellants used it only with permission. S. Okong'o J found the application was filed without unreasonable delay (three days after judgment) but held the Appellants failed to demonstrate substantial loss. The only order against the Appellants was dismissal of their counterclaim - a negative order incapable of stay, per Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman v. Keshavji Jivraj Shah and Raymond M. Omboga v. Austine Pyan Maranga. The positive orders were directed at the 4th and 5th Respondents, who had not appealed. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause, but to preserve the property pending appeal, the court ordered the Land Registrar, Kisumu County to register an inhibition against further dealings with the suit property.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substantial loss as the cornerstone for granting stay

Holding

Appellants failed to demonstrate substantial loss

Reasoning

The Appellants were joined only as interested parties; the positive orders of the lower court were directed at the 4th and 5th Respondents who had not appealed. The Appellants admitted in the lower court that they had stopped using the suit property ten years earlier and had used it only with the Association's permission, and adduced no evidence of current use, so no substantial loss was shown.

p. 5
02

Whether the dismissal of the Appellants' counterclaim can be stayed

Holding

It cannot; it is a negative order incapable of execution

Reasoning

Relying on Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman v. Keshavji Jivraj Shah and Raymond M. Omboga v. Austine Pyan Maranga, the court held that an order dismissing a counterclaim that does not require a party to do or refrain from doing anything is not capable of execution and therefore not capable of stay.

p. 4
03

Reasonable delay

Holding

The application was filed without unreasonable delay

Reasoning

The application was brought three days after the judgment of 16th June 2025, satisfying that limb of Order 42 Rule 6(2), though the application nonetheless failed on substantial loss.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A negative order, such as dismissal of a counterclaim with no positive obligation imposed, is incapable of execution and therefore incapable of stay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Appellants' Notice of Motion dated 18th June 2025 is dismissed with costs to be in the cause
  2. 2.The Land Registrar, Kisumu County shall register an inhibition against the register of all that parcel of land known as Kisumu Municipality/Block 4/162 inhibiting the registration of any other or further dealings with the property pending the hearing and determination of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 159
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 162(2)(b)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1) and (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kenya Shell Limited v. Karuga
    (1982 – 1988) I KAR 1018
  • Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman v. Keshavji Jivraj Shah
    [20008] eKLR
  • Raymond M. Omboga v. Austine Pyan Maranga
    Kisii HCCA No 15 of 2010
On appeal from
Senior Resident Magistrate's Court, Kisumu
Kisumu MCELC No. E007 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 159 and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Owiti & another (Suing in their capacity as the officials of Obunge Youth Soccer Community Based Organization) v Imala & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E047 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5063 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kisumu ELCA (Environment and Land Court Appeal) arising from Kisumu MCELC No. E007 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5063/eng@2025-07-03

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