Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedKakamega ELC Appeal No. 89 of 2025 (consolidated with Kakamega ELC Appeal No. 92 of 2025)

Anzetse & 6 others v Nechesa & 6 others (Environment and Land Appeal E089 & 92 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 8217 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 November 2025
1,324 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 at Kakamega halted eviction proceedings, ruling families with homes on disputed land won't be evicted while their appeal is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega, delivered by A. Nyukuri J on 19th November 2025, determines two consolidated applications for stay of execution pending appeal. Kakamega ELC Appeal No. 89 of 2025 (filed by five appellants) was consolidated with ELC Appeal No. 92 of 2025 (filed by two appellants), with the latter's appellants deemed the 6th and 7th appellants. The applications, dated 3rd October 2025 and 14th October 2025, sought stay of execution of the judgment of the subordinate court delivered on 19th September 2025 in Mumias SPMC L&E Case No. 165 of 2018, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The applicants argued they would suffer irreparable loss, be rendered landless and lose homes built on ancestral land occupied for over 60 years; the 6th appellant, registered proprietor of parcel E. Wanga/Eluche/2852, cited permanent commercial premises and a 60-day eviction order. The respondents, through the 1st respondent's replying affidavit, opposed, contending the appellants had crossed a road separating parcels 84 and 85 and trespassed onto the respondents' land, and would not be landless since they hold titles. Framing a single issue - whether the applicants met the Order 42 Rule 6 threshold - the court found substantial loss demonstrated, the appeal arguable on the boundary question, and no unreasonable delay. The court allowed both applications and stayed execution of the judgment of 19th September 2025 pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicants have met the threshold for grant of orders of stay of execution pending appeal

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the threshold for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 was met

Holding

Yes - substantial loss and an arguable appeal were demonstrated; stay was granted.

Reasoning

The court noted it was not disputed that the appellants have permanent buildings on the suit property and that eviction would render them homeless and landless. The respondents did not show the appellants have other homes on their other titles or where their titles are located. The core dispute is the boundary between parcel Nos. 84 and 85, a triable question, so the appeal is arguable and execution would occasion substantial loss.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • To succeed in an application for stay pending appeal, an applicant must demonstrate substantial loss, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and willingness to provide security for due performance of the decree.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Execution of the judgment delivered on 19th September 2025 in Mumias SPM ELC Case No. 165 of 2018 is stayed pending the hearing and determination of this appeal

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Mumias Senior Principal Magistrate's Court
Mumias SPMC L&E Case No. 165 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Consolidated with
Kakamega ELC Appeal No. 92 of 2025

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.

I find and hold that the applications dated 3rd October 2025 and 14th October 2025 are both merited and are thus allowed.
p. 3disposition on applications
I order that the execution of the judgment delivered on 19th September 2025, in Mumias SPM ELC Case No. 165 of 2018 is hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
p. 3final orders - stay of execution
Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellants have demonstrated substantial loss and an arguable appeal.
p. 3threshold for stay

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The ruling refers inconsistently to the trial court case number as 'Mumias SPMC L&E Case No. 165 of 2018' and 'Mumias SPM ELC Case No. 165 of 2018'; the 6th appellant also refers to a separate suit 'Mumias SPMC ELC No. 44 of 2023' consolidated with No. 165 of 2018.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Anzetse & 6 others v Nechesa & 6 others (Environment and Land Appeal E089 & 92 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 8217 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kakamega ELC Appeal No. 89 of 2025 (consolidated with Kakamega ELC Appeal No. 92 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8217/eng@2025-11-19

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