AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment (arising from Kangundo MCELC No. 64 of 2019)· [2026] KEELC 264 (KLR)
U&I Microfinance Bank Ltd & another v Gacheru (Environment and Land Appeal E083 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 264 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (Matheka J) on a Notice of Motion dated 21st November 2025 brought under Order 42 Rule 6, Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicants sought stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 7th November 2025 in Kangundo MCELC No. 64 of 2019, in which the court cancelled the 2nd Applicant's title to Land Donyo Sabuk/Komarock Block 1/3967 and the 1st Appellant's registered legal charge over it. The Applicants, who have filed an appeal to the ELC, argued that the appeal is arguable, was filed timeously, and that execution would cause them substantial loss and render the appeal nugatory. The Respondent was served and did not oppose the application. The court restated the Order 42 rule 6 conditions - substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security - and the twin principles from the Court of Appeal authorities that the appeal must be arguable and, if successful, not rendered nugatory. Finding no laches (application filed fourteen days after judgment), that the grounds of appeal raise an arguable appeal, and that refusal would render any success nugatory, the court allowed the application as prayed and stayed execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Costs were ordered to be in the cause. The judgment is dated and signed at Machakos on 29th January 2026.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the applicants satisfied the Order 42 rule 6 conditions for stay of execution pending appeal
Holding
The application satisfied all conditions: it was made without delay (14 days after judgment), raised an arguable appeal, the appeal would be rendered nugatory without stay, and the judgment was unopposed.
Reasoning
The court applied the settled principles from Order 42 rule 6 and the case law: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security. Judgment was delivered on 7th November 2025 and the application dated 21st November 2025, showing no laches. The grounds of appeal were found arguable and refusal of stay would render any success nugatory. The application was served and unopposed, and the court granted it as prayed.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate both that the appeal is arguable and that it would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
- Stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6 requires substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree.
- The right of appeal must be balanced against the successful plaintiff's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 7th November 2025 in Kangundo MCELC No. 64 of 2019 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal filed
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Environment and Land), Kangundo
- Kangundo MCELC No. 64 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "U&I Microfinance Bank Ltd & another v Gacheru (Environment and Land Appeal E083 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 264 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (arising from Kangundo MCELC No. 64 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/264/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.