Mugambi (Suing as the legal representative of M’Rimberia -Deceased) v Nyerere (Sued as legal representative of the Estate of M’Rimberia M’Tuerandu- Deceased) & 2 others (Land Case Appeal E091 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 840 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court refused to pause execution of a land judgment because the family seeking the stay showed no real loss and offered no security.
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 application meets the criteria for granting an order of stay of execution pending the hearing and disposal of the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the application satisfied the criteria for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2)
The application failed on substantial loss and security; it was dismissed
The application was lodged 22 days after judgment, so there was no inordinate delay. However, the trial court's disposal orders required the family to agree on a mode of distribution and directed cancellation of registration; nothing in the decree would irreversibly prejudice the suit land without a further court order or mutual agreement. The applicant also remained in possession of its portion and offered no evidence-based security proposal, so the twin requirements of substantial loss and security were not met.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking a stay of execution must give evidence-based proposals on security; a bare willingness to comply with conditions does not amount to offering security
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 3/12/2025 seeking stay of execution is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The applicant shall bear costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Meru
- CMC E & L Case No 59 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending appeal
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment dated 12/11/2025 and consequential orders pending appeal
The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss and did not offer evidence-based security proposals
Costs
In tandem with the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the applicant shall bear costs of the application.
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.
The court finds that the application dated 3/12/2025 has failed to satisfy the criteria upon which this court exercises jurisdiction to grant an order of stay of execution pending the hearing and disposal of an appeal before it. Consequently, the application is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit.
The party seeking an order of stay of execution has an obligation to give evidence-based proposals on security. When none is given by the party, it cannot be said that the party has offered security.
It is clear from the above disposal orders of the trial court that nothing irreversibly prejudicial will happen to the suit land without the mutual agreement of the parties or without a court order from a relevant and competent court.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugambi (Suing as the legal representative of M’Rimberia -Deceased) v Nyerere (Sued as legal representative of the Estate of M’Rimberia M’Tuerandu- Deceased) & 2 others (Land Case Appeal E091 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 840 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Meru CMC E & L Case No 59 of 2014 (Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/840/eng@2026-02-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.