Chebukati & another v Ambwayah (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1445 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kitale refused to pause enforcement of a judgment ordering a landowner to open a public road of access, because she proved no real loss and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
Not demonstrated; the alleged environmental damage was speculative and based on evidence the court had already rejected as unscientific
The court noted it had earlier found no expert evidence on whether the springs or streams were riparian land, and the applicant relied on the same discounted documents. No body or court had declared the area a protected wetland, and the applicant had not moved the relevant Board under the Public Roads and Roads of Access Act for rerouting.
Security
No security was offered for the due realization of the decree
The court restated that security protects the successful party and may take the form of a bank guarantee or title. The applicant offered none, failing a mandatory condition under Order 42.
Nugatory value of the appeal
Not proved; the court declined to assess arguability of the intended appeal
The court held that nugatory means being rendered worthless or useless and that the applicant had not substantiated how the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and that assessing arguability was not its role on a stay application.
Public right of access to roads
Rights of access to roads are public goods; blocking an access road offends the law
The court applied Base Titanium on public services and the Kenya Roads Act framework, noting road authorities are established to manage the road network and that blocking an access road is an offence; the respondents' prejudice outweighed any inconvenience to the applicant.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution under Order 42 requires the application to be filed without unreasonable delay, demonstration of substantial loss, and offering of security
- Substantial loss must be substantiated with tangible and cogent evidence; mere allegation is insufficient
- A pending appeal or stay application does not operate as an automatic stay; a successful party is entitled to enjoy the fruits of judgment
- Environmental apprehension must be real, imminent and apparent; speculation does not suffice for stay
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 17/12/2025 seeking stay of execution is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chebukati & another v Ambwayah (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1445 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (application dated 17/12/2025 arising from judgment delivered 1/12/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1445/eng@2026-03-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.