Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 6255 (KLR)

Ondu v Ondu (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 6255 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2025
1,252 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan landowner who lost a land case got only partial protection: the court blocked the property's sale pending appeal but refused to stop eviction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu (E. Asati, J) deals with a Notice of Motion dated 11th February 2025 in which the Applicant, aggrieved by the entire judgment delivered on 6th February 2025, sought an injunction pending his intended appeal to the Court of Appeal, restraining the Respondent from trespassing onto, developing, alienating, disposing of, or interfering with his possession and occupation of the suit property, Kisumu Block 4/296. The application was anchored on sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 40 and 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Respondent opposed, contending that the Applicant does not reside on or possess the suit land, that she developed it with her own money as the registered owner, that she has no intention of disposing of it, and that since the judgment was against the Applicant it is incapable of being stayed. She relied on the Giella conditions, the Mrao prima facie case test, and authorities on nugatory appeals and hardship, submitting that the application was fatally defective. The Applicant filed no submissions. The court held it could not grant an injunction restraining eviction since its own judgment found the Applicant does not reside on the land. However, it found that restraining the Respondent from disposing of or alienating the suit land pending the appeal caused her no prejudice given her averment of no intention to dispose of it, and noted the Applicant had commenced the appeal. The application was allowed only in part: a temporary injunction against disposal or alienation pending the appeal was granted, with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to injunction pending appeal where the judgment was against the Applicant

Holding

The broad injunction sought could not issue because the Applicant was found not to be in possession of the suit land; only a restraint against disposal/alienation was justified

Reasoning

The court's own judgment had found the Applicant does not reside on the suit land, so an injunction restraining his eviction would contradict that finding. However, since the Respondent averred no intention to dispose of the land, restraining disposal pending appeal causes her no prejudice while preserving the substratum of the intended appeal.

p. 3
02

Commencement of the appellate process as a condition for interlocutory relief pending appeal

Holding

The Applicant demonstrated he had commenced the appeal by exhibiting the Notice of Appeal and request for certified proceedings

Reasoning

The court was satisfied that the Applicant had started the process of filing the appeal, exhibiting the Notice of Appeal and the application for certified copies of proceedings and judgment, which supported the grant of a preservation order pending the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a registered owner has averred no intention of disposing of the suit land, no prejudice arises from restraining her from alienating or disposing of it pending appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from disposing of or alienating the suit land pending hearing and determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 40 and 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; incidental preservation powers pending appeal to the Court of Appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ondu v Ondu (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 6255 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6255/eng@2025-09-25

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