Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 8285 (KLR)

Gori Investments Limited v Apostolic Faith Church & another (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8285 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 November 2025
ANA. Nyukuri
1,003 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega halted execution of a land judgment for 24 months because the losing party could lose the property while appealing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff moved the court by notice of motion dated 22nd July 2025 seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 14th July 2025 pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal, supported by his affidavit sworn on 23rd July 2025. He argued he had filed notice of appeal, stood to suffer substantial loss as the respondent might sell or transfer the suit property, and that the respondent, being in occupation, would suffer no prejudice. The 1st respondent opposed via grounds of opposition dated 1st August 2025, contending the application was misconceived, an abuse of process, sought to stay negative orders, and that the court was functus officio. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant met the threshold for stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It restated the requirements - substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security - and applied the principles in Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal [1979] KLR. The court noted it had declared the 1st defendant the rightful owner and ordered cancellation of the plaintiff's title. The plaintiff's apprehension that the property might be sold or transferred was not rebutted, as no replying affidavit was filed; the respondent's occupation meant any prejudice could be atoned in costs. Substantial loss was therefore demonstrated. The court allowed the application and granted a stay of execution of the 14th July 2025 judgment for 24 months.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff met the Order 42 Rule 6 threshold for stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

The application was allowed; substantial loss was demonstrated because the plaintiff's title was ordered cancelled and the property might be sold or transferred, rendering the appeal nugatory.

Reasoning

The court restated the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions: substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security. Execution being imminent is not itself a ground for stay. The plaintiff feared the respondent would sell or transfer the suit property; the respondent filed no replying affidavit to allay those fears, and being in occupation, its prejudice could be atoned in costs. Stay was therefore granted, but limited to 24 months.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Imminent execution alone is not a ground for stay; the applicant must show substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and willingness to furnish security.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 14th July 2025 granted for 24 months
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, "Gori Investments Limited v Apostolic Faith Church & another (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8285 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8285/eng@2025-11-26

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