Isiye v Kharinda & another (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 694 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to pause eviction because the losing party showed no real loss beyond facing the lawful eviction itself.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, the cornerstone of the jurisdiction.
Order 42 Rule 6 requires an applicant to demonstrate substantial loss, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and willingness to provide security. The applicant's claim of occupation had been considered and rejected at trial, and the allegation alone could not constitute substantial loss. Execution is a lawful process and its commencement or the prospect of eviction does not by itself amount to substantial loss. The court had determined the parties' rights on the merits and could not sit on appeal over its own decision or assess the arguability of the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction for granting stay of execution.
- A first-instance court cannot interrogate the arguability of an appeal against its own decision.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 5th May 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Isiye v Kharinda & another (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 694 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/694/eng@2026-02-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.