Registered Trustees of Child Welfare Society of Kenya v Diocese of Embu Trustees, Registered & another (Land Case E010 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1482 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Embu Environment and Land Court refused to pause a long-running land case, ruling the appeal notice was invalid and the application came far too late.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the Notice of Appeal
The Notice of Appeal is incompetent ab initio because no leave was sought or granted to appeal against the dismissal of the preliminary objection, which is not within the orders appealable as of right under Order 43 Rule 1.
Order 43 Rule 1 lists specific orders appealable as of right. Dismissal of a preliminary objection on locus standi is not among them. Such interlocutory rulings require leave under Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 Rule 3. The Applicant's reliance on Order 43 Rule 1(1)(a) was misconceived, as that provision relates to orders on parties to suits, not dismissals of preliminary objections. This alone warranted dismissal of the application.
Jurisdiction to grant stay of proceedings
Although Order 42 Rule 6(1) empowers the court appealed from to order a stay of proceedings, and the court retains inherent powers under Section 3A, applications for stay pending appeal from interlocutory rulings should ideally be before the appellate court; the court exercises its inherent power cautiously.
The court acknowledged Order 42 Rule 6(1) confers power on the court appealed from to stay proceedings for sufficient cause. However, citing Makena v Nalwa, it noted such applications from interlocutory rulings should ideally lie before the appellate court to avoid jurisdictional overreach. The court nonetheless proceeded to assess the stay criteria under its cautious exercise of inherent jurisdiction, finding they were not met.
Threshold for stay of proceedings pending appeal
The Applicant failed all elements: the appeal appears frivolous, no nugatory risk arises because dismissal of a preliminary objection is a negative order incapable of stay, and the 71-day unexplained delay fails the timeliness test.
Applying the Order 42 Rule 6(2) principles as adapted to stays of proceedings, the court found the appeal challenging the Respondent's statutory locus under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act not arguable; that continuing the suit does not render any successful appeal nugatory since the appellate court can set aside a subsequent judgment; and that the 71-day unexplained delay post pre-trial compliance breached the 'without unreasonable delay' requirement.
Balance of hardships and public interest
The suit concerns public land for vulnerable children delayed for a decade; further delay would violate Articles 40, 53 and 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, and the children's best interests under Article 53(2) are paramount.
The court weighed the decade-long delay since the National Land Commission's 2015 report and the 2019 judgment in ELC Petition No. 1 of 2018. It found the Applicant's history of multiple objections suggested dilatory tactics infringing the Respondent's right to fair trial, and that public interest in expeditious justice, particularly for vulnerable children, outweighed the Applicant's claims.
Legal principles established
#- The dismissal of a preliminary objection on locus standi is not an order from which an appeal lies as of right under Order 43 Rule 1, and an appeal therefrom requires leave under Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 Rule 3; failure to seek leave renders the Notice of Appeal incompetent ab initio.
- Dismissal of a preliminary objection is a negative order, incapable of execution or stay, as it merely allows proceedings to continue.
- The principles for stay of proceedings pending appeal mirror those for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2): an arguable appeal, the appeal would be rendered nugatory without stay, and the application is timely.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 4th September 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.The suit shall proceed to hearing on priority basis
- 3.Parties to comply with pre-trial directions within 30 days
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act; inherent jurisdiction of the court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of Child Welfare Society of Kenya v Diocese of Embu Trustees, Registered & another (Land Case E010 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1482 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1482/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.