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 the excerpt (suit transferred from High Court to Environment and Land Court on 4th November 2019; originally filed 8th February 2016)· [2025] KEELC 6436 (KLR)

Okode v Ounda (Environment and Land Case 2 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 6436 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2025
2,088 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kisumu Environment and Land Court paused a family's eviction pending appeal, but only after the Defendant posts Kshs. 300,000 security within 45 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu (S. Okong'o, J) on the Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 1st April 2025, filed after the court's judgment of 13th February 2025 which found the Plaintiff to be the lawful proprietor of Kisumu/Kadero Got Nyabondo/1493, dismissed the Defendant's counterclaim for adverse possession, and ordered the Defendant to vacate within 120 days. The Defendant sought a temporary injunction restraining eviction, sale or transfer of the property, and a stay of execution pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff opposed through grounds of opposition, contending the court lacked jurisdiction and that no security had been offered. The court held it had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction pending an appeal before the Court of Appeal, such orders lying only within Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, and struck out that limb. On the stay limb, the court applied Order 42 Rule 6(2) and Kenya Shell Limited v Karuga, finding that eviction of the Defendant, whose home stands on the property, would cause substantial and irreparable loss should the appeal succeed, while recognising the Plaintiff's entitlement to possession absent a reversal. The court stayed execution of the vacation and costs orders pending the appeal, on condition that the Defendant deposit Kshs. 300,000/- in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses automatically.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to grant an injunction pending appeal

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction; only the Court of Appeal may grant such an injunction under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6(6) empowers the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctions, but this power attaches to appeals before it, not appeals pending before the Court of Appeal. Only the Court of Appeal can assess whether an appeal is arguable and would be rendered nugatory. This court cannot make that assessment.

p. 3
02

Stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2)

Holding

Stay granted conditionally because the Defendant would suffer substantial loss if evicted before his appeal is heard

Reasoning

The Defendant resides with his home on the suit property and was ordered to vacate within 120 days. Forcible eviction before the appeal is determined would cause irreparable loss if the appeal succeeds. The court has a duty to preserve the subject matter and status quo to protect the right of appeal, while protecting the Plaintiff through conditions given the possibility the appeal may fail.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A trial court cannot grant an injunction pending an appeal before the Court of Appeal; such orders fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under Rule 5(2)(b)
  • Substantial loss is the cornerstone for granting a stay of execution, and where the applicant's home stands on the suit land, eviction pending appeal would constitute substantial loss warranting a conditional stay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The limb of the application seeking an injunction pending appeal before the Court of Appeal is refused for lack of jurisdiction
  2. 2.Execution of the orders made on 13th February 2025 for the Defendant to vacate Kisumu/Kadero Got Nyabondo/1493 within 120 days, failing which he would be forcibly evicted, and for the Defendant to pay the costs of the suit and counterclaim, is stayed pending the hearing and determination of the Defendant's appeal to the Court of Appeal
  3. 3.The Defendant shall deposit Kshs. 300,000/- in a joint interest-earning bank account in the names of the advocates on record for the parties as security within 45 days, in default of which the stay shall automatically lapse without further reference to the court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40; Order 42 Rules 6(1), (2), (6); Order XLI Rule 4 (as cited in Kenya Shell v Karuga)
  • Environment and Land Court Act 2011Sections 3 and 13(7)(a)
  • Court of Appeal Rules 2022Rule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kenya Shell Limited v Karuga
    (1982 – 1988) I KAR 1018
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 and Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3 and 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act 2011; Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for stay pending appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Okode v Ounda (Environment and Land Case 2 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 6436 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (suit transferred from High Court to Environment and Land Court on 4th November 2019; originally filed 8th February 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6436/eng@2025-09-25

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