Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case No. E081/2024 (appeal against judgment in Kilgoris E054/2024)· [2025] KEELC 8670 (KLR)

Kiu & another v Konchory (Environment and Land Appeal E036 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8670 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 December 2025
1,029 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 court paused enforcement of a land judgment, but only after the losing party deposits Kshs. 80,000 within two weeks.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris (M.N. Mwanyale, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 21st August 2025 seeking stay of execution of a judgment in ELC Case No. E081/2024 (Kilgoris E054/2024, Hon. W.C. Waswa) pending appeal. The applicants, unsuccessful litigants, feared eviction of the 2nd applicant and rendering the appeal nugatory. The respondent, Joseph Tubula Konchory, opposed, stating he occupied Plot No. 4 Nkararo Market, that the trial court issued no eviction orders, and that the Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions were unmet. Counsel cited Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, RWW v EKW, Vishram Lalgi v Thorton, and James Wangalwa v Agnes Chesoto. Framing three issues, the court applied the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions: the application was timeously filed; substantial loss was demonstrated since the permanent injunction barring the 2nd appellant from the suit property where she lived would cause loss despite the absence of eviction orders; and security, though not offered, was imposed by ordering deposit of Kshs. 80,000 within two weeks, failing which the stay lapses. The court held arguability of the appeal irrelevant under Order 42 Rule 6, being a Rule 5(2)(b) Court of Appeal consideration. The application was allowed with stay granted pending appeal, and costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Timeliness of the application

Holding

The application was filed timeously, shortly after judgment and filing of the memorandum of appeal

Reasoning

The court found the application was filed on 23rd August 2025, close upon the impugned judgment and the memorandum of appeal filed the same date, satisfying the first Order 42 Rule 6 condition without any finding of inordinate delay.

p. 3
02

Substantial loss

Holding

Substantial loss was demonstrated because the decree barred the 2nd Appellant from entering the suit property where she lives

Reasoning

Although the trial court issued no eviction orders, the permanent injunction and declaratory orders barring the 2nd Appellant from the suit property, where photographs showed she was in occupation of a portion, would cause substantial loss if executed. The court therefore found the second condition satisfied.

p. 3
03

Security for the decree

Holding

The applicant had not offered security, so stay was granted conditional on deposit of Kshs. 80,000

Reasoning

Execution being a lawful process, the applicant ought to have offered security for satisfaction of the decree including costs. The court bridged this gap by conditioning the stay on a deposit of Kshs. 80,000 within two weeks, failing which the stay lapses.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 must satisfy three conditions: timeliness, substantial loss, and security for performance of the decree
  • Arguability of the intended appeal is not a consideration for stay under Order 42 Rule 6

Court orders

#
  1. 1.There shall be a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 12th August 2025 by Hon. W.C. Waswa in Kilgoris E054/2024 pending hearing and determination of the Appeal.
  2. 2.The Applicant shall deposit Kshs. 80,000 as security in court within 2 weeks from today, in default the stay of execution orders shall lapse.
  3. 3.Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(2)
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (4)

  • Butt vs. Rent Restriction Tribunal
  • RWW and EKW
  • Vishram Lalgi vs. Thorton and another
  • James Wangalwa vs Agnes Chesoto
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court, Kilgoris
E054/2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiu & another v Konchory (Environment and Land Appeal E036 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8670 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case No. E081/2024 (appeal against judgment in Kilgoris E054/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8670/eng@2025-12-15

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