Onyando & another v Malala & another (Environment and Land Appeal E073 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8068 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a stay and injunction application, confirming that you cannot stay a dismissal order or use an injunction to block execution of a judgment.
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 conditions for grant of a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules have been demonstrated
- 2.Whether a temporary injunction can issue to stay execution of the trial court's judgment pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(6)
Key legal issues
#Stay of execution pending appeal
The application for stay fails because the order sought to be stayed is a negative dismissal order incapable of execution, and the Applicants did not demonstrate substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, or willingness to furnish security
Order 42 Rule 6(2) requires substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance. The court found that the Memorandum of Appeal challenged only the ruling of 7th August 2025 dismissing the Applicants' joinder application. That dismissal is a negative order, incapable of execution, and the statutory conditions were not proved.
Temporary injunction pending appeal
An injunction under Order 42 Rule 6(6) cannot be used to stay execution of a judgment; the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions were not demonstrated
A temporary injunction under Order 40 Rule 1 is meant to prevent wastage, damage or alienation of suit property. Actions in execution of a judgment are not unlawful actions within the contemplation of Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 42 Rule 6(6). The Applicants also failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, or balance of convenience.
Legal principles established
#- A dismissal order is a negative order which is not capable of execution and cannot be the subject of an order for stay of execution
- Execution of a judgment is lawful and cannot be stayed by way of a temporary injunction under Order 42 Rule 6(6)
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 8th August, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Tamu Magistrates' Court (MC ELC)
- Case No.2 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 13, 14, 18 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011; articles 40 and 48 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment in Tamu MC ELC Case No.2 of 2017 pending appeal
The order appealed against was a dismissal of an application - a negative order incapable of execution - and the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2) were not demonstrated
Injunction against the Respondents from dealing with plots Kisumu/Koru/680 and 280
Neither a prima facie case nor irreparable injury was demonstrated, and execution of a judgment is not an unlawful action to be restrained by injunction
Costs
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.
The dismissal order is a negative order which is not capable of execution.
Execution of the judgement cannot be stayed by way of an order of temporary injunction.
The result is that the court finds that the application lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed. Costs to the Respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'the Applicants' application was dismissed' on 7th August 2025 while the Memorandum of Appeal relates to that dismissal ruling, yet the relief sought is stay of 'the judgement' in the trial case - a discrepancy the court itself resolved by finding only a negative order was under appeal
The application was expressed to be brought under 'order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules' while the judgment quotes the stay conditions from Order 42 Rule 6(2)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyando & another v Malala & another (Environment and Land Appeal E073 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8068 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Tamu MC ELC Case No.2 of 2017 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8068/eng@2025-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.