Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (arising from an appeal struck out on 30th September 2025; subordinate court matter Malindi Miscellaneous Application Number E028 of 2023 - Kazungu Mulewa and Another v The Land Registrar)· [2026] KEELC 877 (KLR)

Catholic Diocese of Malindi Registered Trustees v Mlewa & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 877 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 February 2026
2,769 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

#

A Kenyan landowner who lost an appeal on a technicality can still pause execution of a subordinate court's orders by applying promptly to the same court, provided they pursue the higher appeal diligently.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, the registered proprietor of four parcels of land being subdivisions of Kilifi/Jimba/42, moved the Environment and Land Court at Malindi by Notice of Motion dated 16th October 2025 seeking a stay of execution of orders issued on 11th October 2023 by the subordinate court in Malindi Miscellaneous Application Number E028 of 2023, pending a intended appeal to the Court of Appeal against this court's judgment of 30th September 2025 striking out its appeal for want of leave. The respondents opposed, arguing the court was functus officio, that the application targeted subordinate court orders not forming the subject of a competent appeal, that no decree capable of being stayed existed, and that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial loss, promptness or security. The court framed four issues and held it had jurisdiction: Order 42 CPR empowers the court appealed from to preserve suit property and stay execution, and since the order under appeal emanated from this court, it was the proper forum; the question whether the struck-out appeal was ever competent was for the Court of Appeal. A notice of appeal filed on 7th October 2025 constituted an appeal for the purposes of Order 42 Rule 6(1); the two-week filing delay was not inordinate; and eviction and transfer of the lands before the appeal's determination could render it nugatory. The applicant offered to abide by conditions. The court allowed the application in terms of prayer 4, staying execution subject to the appellant filing and serving its record of appeal within 60 days, failing which the stay lapses and execution may proceed. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to grant stay of execution of subordinate court orders where the appeal before the ELC was struck out

Holding

The court held it has jurisdiction; Order 42 CPR empowers the court appealed from to preserve suit property and stay execution, and the interests of justice demand its exercise even in this unusual scenario

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the striking out of the appeal left the appellant exposed to execution of the subordinate court's orders. Order 42(1) grants any court appealed from power to issue stay. Sending the appellant to the lower court, which would be reluctant to restrain its own order, or to the Court of Appeal two levels up, would be anomalous. The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the court held it should inquire whether the stay conditions are fulfilled.

p. 5
02

Whether the threshold for stay pending appeal was met

Holding

Yes - a notice of appeal lodged on 7/10/2025 constituted an appeal for purposes of Order 42 Rule 6(1); the application filed on 16th October 2025 after judgment on 30/9/2025 involved no inordinate delay; execution and eviction could render the appeal nugatory; and the applicant offered to abide by conditions

Reasoning

The court found the notice of appeal sufficient to constitute an appeal in place. Filing within roughly two weeks of the judgment was not inordinate delay. If the suit lands were transferred and the appellant evicted, they might be put beyond the appellant's reach should the appeal succeed, rendering it nugatory. Security was addressed by the applicant's undertaking to abide by conditions the court deems fit.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The court that issued an order/decree under appeal is the proper court in which to seek a stay of execution, even where execution is to be carried out on the orders of a subordinate court
  • A court should not pre-empt the Court of Appeal's decision on whether an appeal properly existed where leave was denied; that issue is for the higher court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the orders issued in the subordinate court on 11th October 2023 in Malindi Miscellaneous Application Number E028 of 2023 granted in terms of prayer no. 4 of the motion dated 16th October 2025
  2. 2.Condition imposed: the appellant shall file and serve its record of appeal, if not yet done, upon the respondents within 60 days, failing which the stay orders will automatically lapse and the respondents will be at liberty to proceed to execution
  3. 3.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rules 1(1) and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (power to preserve suit property and grant stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Catholic Diocese of Malindi Registered Trustees v Mlewa & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 877 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (arising from an appeal struck out on 30th September 2025; subordinate court matter Malindi Miscellaneous Application Number E028 of 2023 - Kazungu Mulewa and Another v The Land Registrar). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/877/eng@2026-02-18

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