Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 18th September 2025· [2026] KEELC 533 (KLR)

Kilonzo v Kiige; Embakasi Ranching Company (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E285 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 533 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land jurisdiction, per judgment of Hon. Justice E.M. Washe under challenge)
6 February 2026
MKMohammed N. Kullow
2,679 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court dismissed a landowner's bid to pause execution of a judgment because he couldn't prove losing the land would cause him irrecoverable harm.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Mohammed N. Kullow, J, delivered virtually at Nairobi on 6th February 2026, determined a Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2025 in which the defendant/applicant sought a stay of execution of the judgment dated 25th June 2025 and subsequent orders/decree issued by Hon. Justice E.M. Washe, pending the hearing of his application and of his intended appeal, having filed a notice of appeal. He feared eviction from the suit premises and demolition of the developments he had constructed. The plaintiff/respondent opposed, citing inordinate delay of about three months, failure to file a memorandum of appeal, failure to demonstrate substantial loss, and failure to offer security. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicant was entitled to stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. On delay, the court held the period from judgment (25th June 2025) to filing (18th September 2025) was not unreasonable. However, on substantial loss - which the court described as the cornerstone of stay - the applicant merely asserted eviction and demolition without substantiating the nature of the loss or showing the plaintiff, found to be the legal proprietor, would be unable to compensate him if the appeal succeeded. Relying on Machira, Chabari, China City Construction and Kenya Shell v Kibiru, the court found the applicant had failed to substantiate substantial loss and found it unnecessary to consider security. The application was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal satisfied the conditions in Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application was dismissed: delay of roughly three months was held not unreasonable, but the applicant failed to substantiate substantial loss, which the court held was the cornerstone of stay; security for due performance was not reached.

Reasoning

The court applied Order 42 rule 6(1), which requires satisfaction that substantial loss may result, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security be given. The judgment was delivered on 25th June 2025 and the application filed 18th September 2025; the delay was held not unreasonable. Relying on Chabari, China City Construction and Machira, the court held that the applicant, who alleged only eviction and demolition of his developments, did not substantiate the nature of the loss or show the plaintiff could not compensate him if the appeal succeeded.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay of execution must go beyond reciting the statutory words and specify and substantiate the substantial loss claimed; where no substantial loss is proved, the stay application fails and the question of security need not be considered.
  • A successful party is ordinarily entitled to the fruits of the judgment, and stay may be granted only in exceptional circumstances on clear evidence of substantial loss.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the said application is dismissed
  2. 2.The defendant/applicant to pay the plaintiff/respondent costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kilonzo v Kiige; Embakasi Ranching Company (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E285 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 533 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/533/eng@2026-02-06

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