Presbyterian Foundation Association v Riungu & 20 others (Environment and Land Appeal E021 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 377 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Chuka court refused to freeze a land judgment already carried out, but blocked any further dealings with the disputed land pending appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the criteria for granting an order of stay of execution pending disposal of an appeal by this court has been satisfied
- 2.Whether the criteria for granting an interlocutory injunctive relief (in form of an inhibition order) by this court under Order 42 rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules has been met
Key legal issues
#Stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2)
Not satisfied: the application was made after unreasonable delay of 7 months and after the decree had been executed; no substantial loss demonstrated and no security offered
The judgment was delivered on 22/11/2024 and the application filed on 23/6/2025, a delay the court held was unreasonable. Worse, the decree had been executed on 12/6/2025 when the applicant's title was cancelled and the land registered in favour of the County Government. No imminent danger of demolition of structures or closure of the health facility was shown. Security, a mandatory requirement, was never offered. Stay therefore failed on all three limbs.
Interlocutory inhibition under Order 42 rule 6(6)
Granted: the appeal raises arguable grounds and preservation of the suit land is warranted pending appeal
The court found the applicant's grounds of appeal arguable, including the complaint that the trial court applied the Constitution of Kenya 2010 retrospectively to a 2001 allocation, and the plea that the suit was statute-barred. The court noted the land was registered in the name of the County Council of Meru in 1966 and reserved for Kiriani Social Centre, with the 2001 transfer's circumstances in issue. Without making conclusive findings, it held preservation through an inhibition was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution requires satisfaction of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree under Order 42 rule 6(2)
- The jurisdiction of a first appellate court to grant an interlocutory injunction under Order 42 Rule 6(6) is discretionary and equitable, and will not be exercised where the appeal is frivolous or where refusal would not render the appeal nugatory
Court orders
#- 1.The plea for an order of stay of execution is declined/rejected
- 2.An interlocutory inhibition is granted, to stand vacated on disposal of the appeal or on expiry of 12 months from the date of the ruling; the suit land shall remain in the name of the County Government of Tharaka Nithi as trustee and no dealings shall be registered against the title
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chuka Chief Magistrate's Court
- Chuka CMC Civil Case No 24 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6(2) and 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules; first appellate court jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Order of stay of execution of the judgment and decree rendered on 22/11/2024 in Chuka CMC Civil Case No 24 of 2016
The delay of 7 months was unreasonable, the decree had already been executed before the application was filed, no substantial loss was demonstrated, and no security for due performance of the decree was offered
Costs
Costs of the application shall be in the appeal.
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.
In the end, the application dated 20/6/2025 is disposed in the following terms:
The plea for an order of stay of execution is declined/rejected.
The plea for an interlocutory inhibition is granted and the said inhibition shall stand vacated on disposal of this appeal or on expiry of 12 months from the date of this ruling.
Costs of the application shall be in the appeal.
By the time the applicants filed the present application, the decree of the trial court had already been executed.
Whenever disposing a plea for an interlocutory injunction, the court does not make definitive or conclusive pronouncements on the key issues in the dispute.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Presbyterian Foundation Association v Riungu & 20 others (Environment and Land Appeal E021 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 377 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Land Appeal Case No. E021 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/377/eng@2026-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.