Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedAppeal from Marimanti PMC E&L Case No E005 of 2020 (ruling dated 18/9/2025); notice of motion dated 20/11/2025· [2026] KEELC 375 (KLR)

Sammy v Kibuia (Environment and Land Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 375 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 January 2026
1,050 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 at Chuka refused to pause enforcement of a land judgment because the applicant waited three years and offered no evidence of loss.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Mwithi Peter Sammy, moved the Environment and Land Court at Chuka by notice of motion dated 20/11/2025 seeking a temporary status quo and a permanent stay of proceedings and execution of the judgment dated 30/11/2022 in Marimanti PMC E&L Case No E005 of 2020, pending hearing of his appeal against the trial court's ruling dated 18/9/2025 rejecting his application for review. The judgment concerned land parcels South Tharaka/Tunyai 'A'/3740 and 3877. The applicant argued that the respondent had conceded in testimony, pleadings and submissions to releasing 1½ acres to him, that he had lived on the suit land for over 40 years and was in possession of the 1½ acres, and that he was ready to provide security. The respondent opposed through grounds of opposition and submissions by Ms. Mukami, citing inordinate delay of about two to three years since judgment, lack of merit in the appeal, and res judicata arising from a similar application in the trial court. The court identified a single issue: whether the application met the Order 42 rule 6(2) criteria. It found no evidence of substantial loss; an inordinate and unexplained delay of about three years; no evidence-backed security offer, which it held would be irregular to grant without proposal and counter-proposal; and no basis to find arguable grounds of appeal because the applicant had not placed the trial pleadings, evidence, submissions or the review application before the court. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent, the applicant to bear costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2)

Holding

No - the applicant failed on substantial loss, delay, security and arguable appeal, so the application was dismissed with costs.

Reasoning

The court assessed each limb of Order 42 rule 6(2). No evidence demonstrated likely substantial loss; the delay of about three years since the judgment was unexplained; no evidence-backed security offer was made; and the applicant failed to avail the trial record, including the pleadings, evidence and the review application, so the court could not tell whether his grounds - chiefly an alleged concession of 1½ acres by the respondent - were arguable. Costs followed the event.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • No stay of execution shall issue unless substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security are demonstrated under Order 42 rule 6(2).
  • A party seeking an order on security must support the offer with evidence and allow for proposal and counter-proposal.
  • An applicant asserting that the trial court ignored a concession must place the trial record before the appellate court to show arguable grounds.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application for stay of execution dismissed
  2. 2.Applicant to bear costs of the application
On appeal from
Marimanti Principal Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land)
Marimanti PMC E&L Case No E005 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate/stay jurisdiction under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sammy v Kibuia (Environment and Land Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 375 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal from Marimanti PMC E&L Case No E005 of 2020 (ruling dated 18/9/2025); notice of motion dated 20/11/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/375/eng@2026-01-28

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