Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2026] KEELC 796 (KLR)

Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others v County Government of Kiambu (Environment and Land Case 1191 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 796 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (High Court-level first-instance court granting stay of execution pending appeal)
12 February 2026
JOJudy Omange
1,547 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado paused enforcement of a land judgment, confirming that stay of execution requires proof of substantial loss, prompt filing, and security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs applied for a stay of execution of the court's judgment delivered on 30th April 2025, which extinguished their proprietary rights over five parcels of land (LR No. 4953/2209, 4953/2159, 4953/4064, 4953/2021 and 4953/2206), pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. They contended that without stay the properties risked alienation to an extent that restoration would be impossible, rendering the appeal nugatory. The Respondent asserted its entitlement to the fruits of the judgment and questioned the valuation reports and the representation of the 7th Defendant. The court canvassed the application by written submissions and restated the settled principles under Order 42 rule 6(2): substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security. Citing Vishram Ravji Halai, Silverstein v Chesoni, Shell v Kibiru, Antoine Ndiaye, Machira and Transporters Ltd, the court also invoked Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act to consider the ends of justice and to balance the decree holder's rights against the applicant's appellate rights. It found no delay in filing the application and held that the Plaintiffs were likely to suffer greater loss than the Defendants if stay was not granted. The application was allowed: stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal was granted, with costs of the application to be in the cause. Judgment was delivered virtually at Kajiado on 12th February 2026 by Judy Omange J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

The settled principles under Order 42 rule 6(2) apply: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security. The application was filed within the 90 days allowed and the Plaintiffs faced likely loss of the suit properties.

Reasoning

The court restated the Order 42 rule 6(2) conditions and the authorities confirming that substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction. It found no delay, considered the valuation reports and the risk of alienation of the suit properties, and concluded that the Plaintiffs would suffer greater loss than the Defendants if stay were withheld.

p. 4
02

Overriding objective and balancing of competing rights

Holding

Section 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act requires the court to go beyond the mechanical conditions and determine what the ends of justice require in each circumstance.

Reasoning

The court held that the just determination of proceedings obliges it to reconcile the competing rights of the decree holder and the intending appellant, citing Machira and Transporters Ltd, rather than obsessing over the protection of the appellant in disregard of the successful party.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The grant of a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2) requires substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree.
  • The applicant bears the onus of proving substantial loss with real and cogent evidence.
  • The court must balance the decree holder's entitlement to the fruits of the judgment against the judgment debtor's right to pursue an appeal, guided by the overriding objective.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 30th April 2025 granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 1B

Cases cited (6)

  • Vishram Ravji Halai v. Thornton & Turpin
    Civil Application No. Nai. 15 of 1990 [1990] KLR 365
  • Silverstein v Chesoni
    [2002] 1 KLR 867
  • Shell Ltd v Kibiru & Another
    Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1986, Nairobi
  • Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University
    [2015] eKLR
  • Machira T/A Machira & Co. Advocates v. East African Standard (No 2)
    [2002] KLR 63
  • Transporters Ltd. v. Absalom Dova Lumbasi
    [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ray Pharmaceuticals Limited & 6 others v County Government of Kiambu (Environment and Land Case 1191 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 796 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/796/eng@2026-02-12

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