Kariuki & 2 others (Suing as Registered Trustees of Deliverance Church) v New Age Developers Construction Co Ltd & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 813 of 2015 & 557 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 1395 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to block enforcement of its land ruling and let the winners proceed with property transfers, saying only the Court of Appeal can extend appeal deadlines.
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 2nd Defendant's Application is fatally defective.
- 2.Whether the 2nd Defendant has demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal.
- 3.Whether the 2nd Defendant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 4.Whether the Plaintiffs in ELC 813 of 2015 have established grant for prayers sought in their application.
Key legal issues
#Whether combining prayers for extension of time, stay of execution and other relief in one application is fatally defective.
Not defective; no rule requires separate applications, and the Court declined to find the Notice of Motion defective.
The Plaintiffs in ELC 557 of 2016 argued that leave to come on record, leave to appeal out of time and stay of execution must be sought in separate applications. The Court found no rule or procedure prohibits combining such prayers in a single Notice of Motion and held that insisting on separation would offend the constitutional command under Article 159(2)(d) that justice be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities.
Whether the ELC has jurisdiction to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
No. Only the Court of Appeal may extend time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Order 50 Rule 6 CPR and Rules 77 and 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules govern extension of time for lodging a Notice of Appeal. Applying the Salat criteria, the Court noted the 2nd Defendant offered only a sick-off sheet with no evidence of hospitalization. It concluded that the power to extend time under the Court of Appeal Rules is vested in the Court of Appeal itself, not the superior court whose decision is appealed from.
Whether the 2nd Defendant met the Order 42 Rule 6(2) threshold for stay of execution pending appeal.
No stay granted; no appeal filed, no substantial loss shown, no security furnished.
The conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2) - substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance - are cumulative. The 2nd Defendant had not even filed a Notice of Appeal, offered only a sick-off note that did not demonstrate incapacity, and failed to furnish security despite an offer. Balancing his right of appeal against the Plaintiffs' right to enjoy the fruits of judgment, the Court found the threshold unmet.
Whether the Plaintiffs in ELC 813 of 2015 were entitled to orders authorizing the Deputy Registrar to sign transfer and Land Control Board Consent documents to give effect to the judgment.
Yes; the application was merited as a legitimate enforcement step by the decree holders.
The Plaintiffs discovered that the 2nd Defendant had unlawfully subdivided Juja/Komo Block 1/3079 into two parcels (1/4939 and 1/4940), and that executed transfers and LBC consents were needed for the Land Registry to issue titles in line with the judgment. As the judgment declared the Plaintiffs absolute proprietors, and no stay was in place, the Court held a decree holder is entitled to enforce the decree and authorized the Deputy Registrar to sign the documents.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court has no jurisdiction to extend time for filing a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal; that power rests exclusively with the Court of Appeal under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- Stay of execution pending appeal cannot be granted where no appeal has been filed, where substantial loss is not demonstrated, and where security is not furnished - the Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions are cumulative.
- Joinder of multiple prayers (extension of time, stay, etc.) in a single application is not fatally defective; courts should not rely on procedural technicalities that offend Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.
- A decree holder is entitled to enjoy the fruits of its judgment and, absent a stay, the decree is enforceable, including through execution measures such as authorization of the Deputy Registrar to sign transfer documents.
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 8th April 2025 is disallowed in its entirety.
- 2.Leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time is declined; the Court lacks jurisdiction to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal, that power resting with the Court of Appeal under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 3.Prayer for stay of execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 6th February 2025 pending the intended appeal at the Court of Appeal is declined.
- 4.The alternative prayer for status quo preservation over the Juja/Komo suit properties pending the intended appeal is declined.
- 5.Prayer for a certificate of delay is declined (no order granted).
- 6.The Plaintiffs' application dated 12th May 2025 is allowed.
- 7.The Deputy Registrar of the Court is authorized to sign the transfers and Land Control Board Consent application forms for property Juja/Komo Block 1/3080, Juja/Komo Block 1/4939 and Juja/Komo Block 1/4940 and all necessary documents to give effect to the judgment of the Court entered on 6th February 2025.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution; applications brought under Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act (implied by the prayers and enabling grounds)
- Consolidated with
- ELC Case No. 557 of 2016
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file Notice of Appeal out of time
The ELC lacks jurisdiction; only the Court of Appeal may extend time under its Rules, and no sufficient cause (hospitalization/incapacity) was shown.
Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 6th February 2025 pending intended appeal
The 2nd Defendant had not filed any appeal, nor demonstrated substantial loss, nor furnished security as required by Order 42 Rule 6(2).
Alternative prayer for status quo over the suit properties pending appeal
It was contingent on the stay prayers which failed; the Plaintiffs as decree holders are entitled to enforce the judgment.
Certificate of delay and related ancillary prayers to facilitate preparation of the Record of Appeal
These were tied to the dismissed application and could not stand once leave to appeal out of time and stay were refused.
Costs
Costs will be in the cause.
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.
I find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal as it is the Court of Appeal that holds the primary jurisdiction to do so. I will hence decline to grant this prayer.
I find that the 2nd Defendant has not met the threshold for stay pending Appeal since no Appeal has been filed. In my view the 2nd Defendant has not demonstrated any sufficient cause or substantial loss.
A decree holder is entitled to enjoy the fruits of its judgement, and once any stay is lifted or lapses, the decree becomes enforceable.
I note there is no procedure outlawing the joining of the said prayers in one application.
In the foregoing, I find the 2nd Defendant's application dated 8th April, 2025, as unmerited and will disallow it. I find the Plaintiffs' application dated 12th May, 2025 as merited and will allow it.
Costs will be in the cause
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the intended appeal being lodged at 'Court of Appeal Nyeri' in one prayer and 'Court of Appeal Nairobi' in the alternative prayer of the same application.
The judgment states the period for filing a Notice of Appeal as 15 days in the application extracts, while the Court of Appeal Rules quoted in the judgment prescribe fourteen days.
The Plaintiff's application (paragraph 13 of the judgment) describes one of the parcels as Juja/Komo Block 1/3079 in the list of properties declared to belong to the Plaintiffs, while the application itself seeks transfer of Juja/Komo Block 1/3080, 1/4939 and 1/4940; the list of declared parcels in paragraph 3 of the 2nd Defendant's supporting affidavit omits 1/3079 and 1/3080 despite the same description.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki & 2 others (Suing as Registered Trustees of Deliverance Church) v New Age Developers Construction Co Ltd & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 813 of 2015 & 557 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 1395 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC No. 813 of 2015 & ELC No. 557 of 2016 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1395/eng@2026-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.