Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedButali CMC ELC Case No. 117 of 2018 (appeal therefrom)· [2025] KEELC 7289 (KLR)

Ali v Khasoa & another (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7289 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 October 2025
ANA. NYUKURI
1,118 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a stay of execution request because the appellant failed to prove he would suffer real loss if the judgment were enforced.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega (A. Nyukuri, J) on a notice of motion dated 20th March 2025 in which the appellant, the losing party in Butali CMC ELC Case No. 117 of 2018, sought stay of execution of the judgment and decree issued on 14th January 2025 as well as stay of the orders of 11th March 2025 declining stay before the trial court, pending the hearing and determination of his appeal. The application was supported by an affidavit in which the applicant claimed imminent risk of execution and that his appeal, which he asserted had high chances of success, would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted. The respondent opposed through grounds of opposition dated 8th May 2025, describing the application as frivolous and vexatious and as an attempt to delay a successful litigant from enjoying the fruits of judgment. The court identified a single issue: whether the applicant met the threshold in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Applying James Wangalwa & Another vs. Agnes Naliaka Cheseto, the court held that imminent execution is not itself substantial loss since execution is a lawful process. The applicant merely alleged his appeal would be nugatory without demonstrating the manner of the loss. The court found the application devoid of merit and dismissed it with costs to the respondent on 16th October 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Threshold for stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

Applicant must demonstrate substantial loss, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and willingness to provide security; the applicant proved none beyond bare allegations

Reasoning

The court applied Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires satisfaction that substantial loss may result, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security for due performance of the decree has been given. Relying on James Wangalwa & Another vs. Agnes Naliaka Cheseto, the court held that execution being set in motion is itself not substantial loss. The applicant merely asserted his appeal would be rendered nugatory without demonstrating the manner in which that would occur, and so failed to discharge the burden.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Imminent execution cannot in itself be a basis for grant of orders of stay of execution pending appeal, as execution is a lawful process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 20th March 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Butali
Butali CMC ELC Case No. 117 of 2018
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, "Ali v Khasoa & another (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7289 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Butali CMC ELC Case No. 117 of 2018 (appeal therefrom). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7289/eng@2025-10-16

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