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 judgment text provided· [2025] KEELC 6998 (KLR)

Kimani & 2 others v Akuisi Farmers Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Appeal E046 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6998 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 October 2025
1,989 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 Nakuru Environment and Land Court paused execution of its judgment, but only if the appellant deposits Kshs 1.5 million as security within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) delivered on 14th October 2025 on a Notice of Motion dated 19th June 2025 by the 3rd Appellant/Applicant seeking stay of execution of the court's judgment/decree of 17th June 2025 pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. It was the second stay application by the appellant, the first having been heard and determined upon lodging the appeal. The applicant, through counsel Ruth Wambui, argued that the application was made timeously, that the Kshs 300,000/- already deposited in a joint interest-earning account pursuant to an earlier court order sufficed as security, and that failure to grant stay would render the appeal nugatory as the suit property could be irreversibly altered. The 1st Respondent, through its Secretary Stanley Mburu Njoroge, opposed the application, contending it was designed to deny the successful parties the fruits of judgment, and alternatively proposed additional security of not less than Kshs 2,000,000/-. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant met the Order 42 Rule 6(2) threshold. Applying established authorities including Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, Absalom Dora v Turbo Transporters, James Wangalwa v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto and Kenya Commercial Bank v Sun City Properties, the court held that an applicant must do more than assert substantial loss, and that the nature and quantum of security is for the court. It granted the stay conditionally on deposit of Kshs 1,500,000/- in a joint interest-earning account of the advocates within 30 days, failing which the order lapses; costs to abide the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant satisfied the Order 42 Rule 6(2) threshold for stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

Stay granted conditionally on further security, balancing the parties' competing interests

Reasoning

The court found the applicant had not adequately demonstrated substantial loss beyond mere assertion but noted the deposit already made and the need to balance the appellant's right of appeal against the decree holder's rights. It exercised its discretion to grant a conditional stay, ordering additional security within 30 days, failing which the order lapses.

p. 4
02

Nature of security to be given for due performance of the decree

Holding

The nature and quantum of security is a matter for the court's discretion

Reasoning

The court held that Order 42 rule 6(2)(b) vests the order of security in the court to ensure its discretion is not fettered. It therefore fixed the additional security at Kshs 1,500,000/- in a joint interest-earning account of the advocates on record, rather than the respondents' proposed Kshs 2,000,000/-.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to grant or refuse a stay of execution is discretionary and should be exercised so as not to prevent an appeal from being rendered nugatory
  • An applicant must demonstrate substantial loss, not merely assert it
  • The court balances the competing interests of the decree holder and the appellant, usually through an order for security

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application for stay of execution is allowed on condition that the Applicant deposit Kshs. One Million, Five Hundred Thousand (1,500,000/=) only in a joint interest earning account of the Advocates on record within 30 days failure to which the order lapses
  2. 2.Costs of the Application to abide by the outcome of the Appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(2)

Cases cited (13)

  • Halai & Another vs Thornton & Turpin (1963) Ltd
    [1990] KLR 365
  • Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
  • Kenya Shell Ltd vs Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & Another
    [1986] eKLR
  • Equity Bank Ltd vs West Link MBO Ltd
    [2013] eKLR
  • Trust Bank Limited vs Amin Company Ltd & Another
    [2000] eKLR
  • RWW vs EKW
    [2019] eKLR
  • Board of Governors, Moi High School Kabarak & Another vs Malcom Bell
    [2013] eKLR
  • Samvir Trustee Limited vs Guardian Bank Limited
    Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC 795 of 1997
  • Telposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees vs Intercountries Importers & Exporters Ltd & 3 others
    KEELC 1182 (KLR)
  • Charles Kariuki Njuri vs Francis Kimaru Rwara (Suing as Administrator of Estate of Rwara Kimaru alias Benson Rwara Kimaru (Deceased)
    [2020] eKLR
  • Absalom Dora vs Turbo Transporters
    2013 eKLR
  • James Wangalwa & Anor Vs Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    (2012) eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Limited Vs Sun City Properties Limited & 5 Others
    [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimani & 2 others v Akuisi Farmers Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Appeal E046 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6998 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6998/eng@2025-10-14

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