Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt provided· [2025] KEELC 7854 (KLR)

Ruto v Kimani & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 211 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7854 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 November 2025
MOM. A. Odeny
1,300 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to pause a land judgment because living on the land alone does not prove the harm needed for a stay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) determined the 2nd and 3rd Defendants' Notice of Motion dated 9th June 2025 seeking a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 8th May 2025 pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal, supported by the affidavit of John Wachira Chiri. Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the applicants resided with their families on the suit parcels, faced immediate eviction and demolition of buildings, and would suffer substantial loss; they relied on Tonui v Wekesa, Mayenga v Khamu and Musembi v Moi Educational Centre. The Plaintiff/Respondent, in a replying affidavit and through Mr. Kipkoech, countered that the application was filed about thirty days after judgment (inordinate delay), that no substantial loss or security for due performance of the decree was shown, and that the balance of convenience favoured him, relying on Jason Ngunba Kogu, Machira, Kenya Shell v Kibiru and RWW v EKW. Framing the issue as whether the Order 42 Rule 6 threshold was met, the court held there was no inordinate delay, but applying Charles Wahome Gethi v Angela Wairimu Gethi and Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, found that mere residence on the land does not establish substantial loss. The application was dismissed; the Applicants were directed to fast-track the appeal, with costs to abide by the appeal's outcome.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants for stay of execution proved substantial loss

Holding

The court found no substantial loss proved; mere residence on the land is insufficient.

Reasoning

The applicants contended they resided with their families on the suit parcels and faced eviction and demolition. Relying on Charles Wahome Gethi v Angela Wairimu Gethi, the court held residence alone is not enough; applicants must demonstrate the specific substantial loss. On the evidence, no such loss was proved, so the stay could not issue.

p. 3
02

Whether there was inordinate delay in filing the stay application

Holding

No inordinate delay; the application filed on 9th June 2025 following judgment of 8th May 2025 was within reasonable time.

Reasoning

The court compared the judgment date with the application date and found the interval reasonable. This limb of Order 42 Rule 6 was therefore satisfied, but the application nonetheless failed on the substantial loss requirement.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay must show substantial loss beyond merely residing on the suit land
  • Stay of execution requires filing without undue delay, proof of substantial loss, and offering security

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 9th June 2025 dismissed; stay of execution orders sought declined
  2. 2.Applicants directed to take steps to fast track the hearing of the appeal
  3. 3.Costs to abide by the outcome of the Appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XLI rule 4(2)(b)

Cases cited (10)

  • Tonui vs Wekesa & 5 others
    Kitale H.C ELC No 23 of 2018 (2025) KEELC 1326 (KLR)
  • Mayenga & 2 others vs Khamu & another
    Mombasa H.C ELC No E024 OF 2024 KEELC 7407 (KLR)
  • Musembi & 13 others vs Moi Educational Centre Co Ltd
    Supreme Court of Kenya Petition No 2 of 2018
  • Jason Ngunba Kogu & 2 others vs Intra Africa Assurance Company Limited
    (2014) eKLR
  • Machira t/a Machira & Co Advocates vs East African Standard (No 2)
    (2002) KLR 63
  • Kenya Shell Ltd vs Benjamin Karuya Kibiru and another
    [1982-1988] 1 KAR 1018
  • RWW vs EKW
    [2019] eKLR
  • Charles Kariuki Njuri v Francis Kimaru Rwara (suing as Administrator of the Estate of Rwara Kimaru alias Benson Rwara Kimaru (deceased)
    [2020] eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    (1982) KLR 417
  • Charles Wahome Gethi vs. Angela Wairimu Gethi
    [2008] 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, "Ruto v Kimani & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 211 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 7854 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7854/eng@2025-11-14

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