Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 7th November 2025 (in the contempt proceedings arising from ruling of 23rd October 2025)· [2026] KEELC 523 (KLR)

Muturi v Ndumbi & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 523 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 February 2026
3,886 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Naivasha (M.C. Oundo, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2025 by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, who had been found guilty of contempt of status quo orders of 10th March 2025 by a ruling of 23rd October 2025, with mitigation and sentencing slated for 4th November 2025. The Applicants sought a stay of mitigation and sentencing pending an intended appeal, invoking Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 63E of the Civil Procedure Act. They argued they had filed a Notice of Appeal without delay, that service of the ex-parte order on their advocate did not amount to personal knowledge sufficient to sustain a contempt conviction, and that sentencing would render their appeal nugatory. The Plaintifi opposed, contending the application was premature since no sentence existed to stay, that a similar Court of Appeal application (Nakuru ELCLA No. E110/2025) had been withdrawn as premature, and that the Applicants were served with the orders on 11th March 2025 and filed a preliminary objection before demolishing her property valued at over Ksh. 24 million. The court framed one issue: whether the application was merited. It held that execution in contempt proceedings only ensues after sentence, so there was no positive order to stay; the Applicants could not show substantial loss from an unknown sentence; and with no subsisting appeal, stay prayers were superfluous. The application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintifi, with the court noting the Applicants retain a right of appeal against the sentence once passed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a stay of mitigation and sentencing for contempt can be granted before sentence is passed

Holding

No - the application is premature because there is no sentence or positive order in existence to stay

Reasoning

The court reasoned that execution in contempt matters ends only after sentence. Since the sentence's nature and severity were unknown, the Applicants could not plead substantial loss from a punishment not yet imposed. Following Wendano Matuu Co Ltd, only a higher court can stay a sentence, and an appeal lies only upon sentencing. The Applicants would retain a right of appeal against the sentence, so no prejudice would be suffered.

p. 7
02

Whether a stay can be granted in the absence of a subsisting appeal

Holding

No - stay presupposes an appeal; the Applicants' Court of Appeal stay application had been withdrawn and no appeal was pending

Reasoning

The Applicants had rushed to the Court of Appeal before sentencing, but that stay application was withdrawn after the appellate judges opined it was premature. Citing the Supreme Court in James Mbatia Thuo and University of Eldoret, the court held that in the absence of a subsisting appeal, prayers for stay are superfluous.

p. 8
03

Whether the Applicants demonstrated substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6(2)

Holding

No - they failed to show the specific substantial loss they would suffer, as sentencing had not occurred

Reasoning

Relying on Charles Wahome Gethi, the court held that an applicant must show the kind of substantial loss to be suffered, not merely assert it. Because the court had not yet punished the contemnors, the Applicants could not plead prejudice from a sentence whose nature and severity they did not know. The other two conditions of Order 42 Rule 6(2) need not be considered.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Execution in contempt proceedings can only ensue after sentence is handed down; before sentencing there is nothing specific to stay
  • Without a positive order, there can be no stay of execution pending appeal
  • Stay of execution is intended to preserve the substratum of the case so a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 7th November 2025 seeking stay of mitigation and sentencing is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintifi/Respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 22
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63E
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(c)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 165(3)

Cases cited (17)

  • African Centre for Rights and Governance (ACRAG) & 3 Others vs Naivasha Municipal Council
    [2018] eKLR
  • Justus Kariuki Mate & Another vs Martin Nyaga Wambora & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya & Another vs Geofirey Wahome Muotia
    Civil Application No. NAI 283 of 2015 (UR 241/2015), (2016) eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1979] KLR
  • Wilson vs Church (No. 2)
    12 CH D (1899) 454
  • Teachers Service Commission v. KNUT & 2 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v. Minister for Information & Communication
    [2005] eKLR
  • Republic v. Ahamad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Shimmers Plaza Limited v. National Bank of Kenya
    [2015] eKLR
  • Consolidated Marine vs. Nampijja & Another
    Civil App. No. 93 of 1989 (Nairobi)
  • Stephen Mbugua Gituthi & 2 others v National Land Commission & another
    [2021] eKLR
  • Charles Wahome Gethi vs. Angela Wairimu Gethi
    [2008] eKLR
  • Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited vs Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya)
    [2015] eKLR
  • Wendano Matuu Co Ltd & 2 others vs Joshua Kimeu Kioko & 6 others
    [2020] eKLR
  • James Mbatia Thuo & Ephantus Mwangi v Kenya Railways Corporation & Attorney General of Kenya
    [2018] eKLR
  • University of Eldoret & Another vs Hosea Sitienei & 3 Others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Board of Governors, Moi High School Kabarak & Another
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 63E of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muturi v Ndumbi & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2025)  (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 523 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 7th November 2025 (in the contempt proceedings arising from ruling of 23rd October 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/523/eng@2026-02-05

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