Onyango v Makanyanga & another (Environment and Land Case 178 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7755 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kakamega Environment and Land Court refused to pause eviction proceedings because the defendant waited too long and never showed real loss.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of orders of stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the Order 42 Rule 6 threshold for stay of execution pending appeal
The application failed: no substantial loss was demonstrated and the delay in filing was inordinate without plausible explanation.
The court applied the three cumulative conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2): substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security. The applicant merely asserted that eviction would cause substantial loss without expounding it. Judgment was delivered on 27th March 2025 with 120 days to vacate, was posted on the CTS on 28th March 2025, yet the application came only on 21st August 2025, after the stay period lapsed. The claim that judgment was unavailable until June 2025 was rejected.
Legal principles established
#- Imminent execution alone cannot form the basis for grant of stay of execution pending appeal; an applicant must show substantial loss, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and willingness to provide security
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of motion dated 21st August 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- null (this is a first-instance interlocutory application; appeal lies to the Court of Appeal, Kisumu, Civil Appeal No. E172 of 2025)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 27th March 2025 pending hearing and determination of Kisumu Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. E172 of 2025
Substantial loss was not demonstrated; the application was made with inordinate and unexplained delay after the 120-day stay period lapsed on 25th July 2025; judgment had been posted on the CTS on 28th March 2025
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the premises, I find no merit in the application dated 21st August 2025, which I hereby dismiss with costs to the respondents.
Therefore, the delay in seeking stay is inordinate with no plausible explanation.
That loss has neither been expounded nor demonstrated.
Substantial loss does not represent any particular mathematical formula. Rather, it is a qualitative concept.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the ELC case number of the suit or the application file number
The judgment is described as granting both 60 days and 120 days stay at different points without reconciling the discrepancy
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Makanyanga & another (Environment and Land Case 178 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7755 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (ELC application arising from judgment delivered 27th March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7755/eng@2025-11-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.