Ibrahim (Suing as her as the Co-administrator of the Estate of Sebit Abdalla Sebit - Deceased) v Al Islamiya Estates Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case 229 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 7770 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to pause an eviction judgment because the applicant offered no evidence of actual loss—saying you'll lose land isn't enough.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 were satisfied
The application was filed without undue delay but the Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss; therefore the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6 were not met and the stay was refused
The court set out the three Order 42 Rule 6 conditions: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security. Although the application was filed within about three weeks of the judgment and so was not delayed, the Applicant's assertion that he was in possession and would suffer loss was unsupported by any evidence of the actual loss. Following Samvir Trustees and Tropical Commodities, mere assertions without empirical or documentary evidence do not establish substantial loss. Since substantial loss is the cornerstone, its absence was fatal.
Whether an arguable appeal and possible eviction render the appeal nugatory
Assertions of eviction do not prove substantial loss, and a mere statement that an appeal will be rendered nugatory without evidence does not justify a stay
The Applicant argued he would be evicted and his title cancelled, rendering the appeal nugatory. Relying on its own earlier decision in Karungu v Masira, the court held that a decree of eviction issued after full hearing is not itself substantial loss, and a mere mention of imminent eviction is not proof of it. The court also noted that even a successful appeal's fruits can be restored by the court's power to undo what has been done, so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory.
Legal principles established
#- Where an Applicant has not shown the substantial loss that he/she would suffer, there is no need to grant stay of execution orders; if the appeal succeeds the court has power to undo what has been done
- A mere mention of imminent eviction is not proof of substantial loss
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2025 seeking stay of execution is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
- 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, "Ibrahim (Suing as her as the Co-administrator of the Estate of Sebit Abdalla Sebit - Deceased) v Al Islamiya Estates Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case 229 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 7770 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7770/eng@2025-11-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.