Ramadhani & another v Odero & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E089 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 81 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court reinstated a dismissed land appeal, but refused to stop execution because the disputed land had already been transferred back to the respondent's side.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether leave should be granted for the firm of Conrad Law Advocates LP to come on record for the appellant in place of Ogendo Mwidau Advocates
- 2.Whether the court's order of 29th September 2025 dismissing the appeal should be set aside and the appeal reinstated
- 3.Whether an order of stay of execution of the judgment and decree issued on 16th October 2024 should be granted
Key legal issues
#Setting aside of dismissal order and reinstatement of appeal
The dismissal order of 29th September 2025 was set aside and the appeal reinstated, because the applicant's former advocate had been served but failed to attend court, the application was filed timeously, and justice favoured the applicant being heard
The court noted the applicant had an advocate on record at the date of dismissal; that advocate was served with the Mention Notice but failed to attend. The applicant claimed not to have been notified. Weighing the desire to be heard on appeal, the explanation for non-attendance, and the timeous filing, the court exercised its discretion in favour of reinstatement so the appellant could prosecute the appeal.
Stay of execution
Stay of execution was refused because the decree had partly been executed - the suit land's registration had already reverted to Henry Odero Ochila, deceased - as evidenced by an official search not disputed by the applicant
The 1st respondent, through a supplementary affidavit and an official search dated 23rd October 2025, demonstrated that the decree had been executed by reverting registration of Kisumu/Wathorego/1219 to the name of the deceased. The applicant did not dispute this. The court therefore held the stay prayer overtaken by events and declined to grant it.
Legal principles established
#- A party's desire to be heard, a reasonable explanation for non-attendance by counsel, and the timeous filing of the application justify lifting a dismissal order in the interest of justice
- A prayer for stay of execution becomes moot, and must be refused, where the decree has already been executed
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted for the firm of Conrad Law Advocates LP to come on record for the appellant/applicant in place of Ogendo Mwidau Advocates
- 2.The court order of 29th September 2025 dismissing the appeal is set aside and the appeal reinstated to hearing
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrates' Court (trial court, Hon. D.O Onyango CM)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate and supervisory jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from subordinate courts, exercised in an interlocutory application (no specific provision cited in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Order of stay of execution of the judgment and decree issued on 16th October 2024
The decree had already been partly executed - registration of the suit land Kisumu/Wathorego/1219 had reverted to Henry Odero Ochila (deceased) - so the prayer was overtaken by events
Prayer 4 (appeal be set down for hearing) and prayer 5 (costs be in the cause)
The respondent averred these were untenable and overtaken by events since the decree had already been executed; the court granted the application only in terms of prayers 2 and 3
Costs
Costs of the application are awarded 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.
find it to be in the interest of justice to lift the dismissal order and reinstate the appeal and allow the appellant opportunity to prosecute the appeal.
The prayer for an order of stay of execution has therefore been overtaken by events.
Leave is granted for the firm of Conrad Law Advocates LP to come on record for the appellant/ applicant in place of Ogendo Mwidau Advocates.
The court order of 29th September 2025 herein dismissing the appeal is hereby set aside and the appeal reinstated to hearing.
Costs of the application are awarded to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the certificate of official search is described as dated 23rd October 2023 in one passage and 23/10/2025 in another
The ruling does not state the case number, names of the parties, or the lower court case details, identifying parties only by role
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ramadhani & another v Odero & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E089 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 81 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/81/eng@2026-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.