Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2025] KEELC 7979 (KLR)

Ayora v Odhiambo & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7979 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (or High Court) - not expressly stated on the face of the judgment
19 November 2025
CMC. G. MBOGO
1,749 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to pause a land case pending appeal, ruling that filing an appeal alone is never enough to stop ongoing proceedings.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Following a ruling delivered on 11th November 2025 dismissing the plaintiff/applicant's notice of motion dated 9th June 2025, counsel for the plaintiff made an oral application under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking stay of execution of the ruling and stay of proceedings pending an intended appeal. Counsel for the plaintiff argued there was an arguable appeal, that the orders were 'positive' in barring the plaintiff from adducing evidence, that the application was made without delay, and that security for costs was not mandatory, citing Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University. The 1st and 2nd defendants opposed, the latter relying on Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v EP Oranga to argue that a dismissal order cannot ground a stay, and on Ringera J's decision in Re Global Tours and Travel Limited on stay of proceedings. The court framed one issue: whether stay of execution and proceedings ought to issue pending the intended appeal. It set out the three conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2), and adopting Halsbury's Laws and Global Tours, held that stay of proceedings is a radical remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances. Noting the suit was at an advanced hearing stage, the plaintiff had already closed its case, and no exceptional circumstance was shown, the court found the greater injustice would fall on the defendants. The oral application was dismissed with costs in the cause on 19th November 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) were satisfied

Holding

Stay of execution was not granted; the orders complained of were not executable and the applicant did not demonstrate substantial loss

Reasoning

The court noted the ruling of 11th November 2025 merely dismissed the plaintiff's notice of motion. The 2nd defendant argued a dismissal order cannot ground a stay, costs being in the cause and nothing capable of execution. The court found the application without merit and dismissed it, with costs in the cause.

p. 3
02

Whether stay of proceedings should issue pending the intended appeal

Holding

Refused. No exceptional circumstance was shown; the suit was at an advanced hearing stage and the plaintiff had already closed its case

Reasoning

Applying Halsbury's Laws and Ringera J's principles in Re Global Tours and Travel Limited, the court held stay of proceedings is a radical remedy exercised sparingly. Weighing the parties' interests, the greater injustice would fall on defendants keen to defend the suit; timely disposal favoured continued hearing.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of proceedings is a radical remedy granted only in very exceptional circumstances and must be exercised sparingly
  • Whether to grant a stay of proceedings pending appeal is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice, weighing factors such as expeditious disposal, arguability of the intended appeal and expedition of the application
  • The mere filing of an appeal does not mean proceedings must be stayed; sufficient cause must be shown

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The oral application made on 11th November 2025 by the plaintiff/applicant for stay of execution and stay of proceedings pending intended appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1) and (2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A

Cases cited (3)

  • Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University
    [2015] KEHC 6783 (KLR)
  • Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences Vs EP Oranga & others
    [1976 - 1980] eKLR
  • Re Global Tours and Travel Limited
    Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent jurisdiction invoked by applicant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ayora v Odhiambo & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7979 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7979/eng@2025-11-19

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