Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment (arising from appeal against directions in Milimani CMELC No. E165 of 2025)· [2025] KEELC 6940 (KLR)

Karuri v Kenya Shelters Agencies Limited & another (Environment and Land Appeal E098 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6940 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 October 2025
JKJ. G. Kemei
1,662 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a tenant's application because you cannot appeal routine court directions or stay proceedings that have not yet been decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, a tenant of Unit No. 6B Umoja under a verbal tenancy since July 2022, filed an application dated 5/6/25 in the Environment and Land Court seeking to enjoin his landlord, Gitari Njoka, as a third respondent, a stay of proceedings in Milimani CMELC No. E165 of 2025 pending an intended appeal, orders compelling opening of the suit premises and access, a temporary injunction against closure of the premises, and police assistance in enforcement. His grievance arose from a proclamation of distress for rent of Kshs 110,000/- on 4/5/25 and the welding shut of his house entrance on 24/5/25; he appealed against the trial court's directions fixing a ruling date for his application. The respondents, through Joel Migwi (director of the 1st respondent estate agent) and the landlord Njoka Gitari, opposed, contending the applicant was a rent defaulter who vacated voluntarily, after which the house was secured and let to a third party. The court framed four issues but determined only the stay question. Relying on Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Global Tours & Travels discretion principles, the court held that the trial court's directions were case management steps, not appealable decisions, and that no proceedings existed that could be stayed before the trial court ruled. The application was found premature and was struck out with costs to the respondents; the remaining issues were not addressed as they depended on the stay.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to stay proceedings in the lower court pending appeal against interlocutory directions

Holding

The application was premature; directions fixing a ruling date are case management and not appealable, and there were no proceedings capable of being stayed

Reasoning

The court applied Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the principles in Global Tours & Travels Ltd, weighing whether a stay serves the interest of justice. It held that the only grievance was the fixing of a ruling date, which is not an appealable decision, and that granting a stay would impede the hearing of the trial suit and waste judicial time.

p. 4
02

Whether the landlord should be enjoined and compelled to grant entry, and whether an interlocutory injunction should issue

Holding

These issues were not determined because they all depended on the success of the stay application

Reasoning

Having found the application premature, the court declined to address the remaining issues (enjoinment of the landlord, compulsory entry, and injunction), holding they were all contingent on the stay of proceedings being allowed, which it refused.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Case management directions of a trial court do not constitute an appealable decision and cannot found a stay of proceedings
  • An application for stay of proceedings is premature where the trial court has not yet determined the pending application, as there are no proceedings properly subject to a stay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 5/6/25 is struck out with costs to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1)

Cases cited (2)

  • William Odhiambo Ramogi & 2 Others -vs- The Honourable Attorney General & 3 Others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Global Tours & Travels Limited
    Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Milimani (Environment & Land Case)
E165 of 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate/supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate court interlocutory directions (memorandum of appeal dated 5/6/25); statutory basis for stay: Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karuri v Kenya Shelters Agencies Limited & another (Environment and Land Appeal E098 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6940 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (arising from appeal against directions in Milimani CMELC No. E165 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6940/eng@2025-10-09

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