Munyendo v Makokha & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1597 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kakamega landowner lost his bid to halt execution of a boundary judgment because he could not show real, irreparable loss.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss
No substantial loss shown; the alleged loss of a planting season over 0.3 hectares is compensable in damages and the appellant retains 0.6 hectares
The appellant did not controvert the Land Registrar's report that he occupied 0.9 hectares instead of the 0.6 he purchased. He never challenged the order adopting the survey report. Since he still cultivates his 0.6 hectares, any loss of a planting season on the disputed 0.3 hectares would be quantifiable and compensable by damages should the appeal succeed.
Whether the impugned judgment is a negative order incapable of stay
The judgment contains both negative and positive orders (dismissal plus boundary fixation and maintenance) and is thus capable of being stayed
Counsel contested whether a dismissal is executable. The court noted the trial court not only dismissed the suit but also adopted the Land Registrar and County Surveyor's report, deemed the boundary ascertained and fixed, and ordered parties to respect and maintain it — positive orders capable of stay. The point was therefore academic to the outcome given failure on substantial loss.
Whether the application was brought to intimidate the respondents
Allegation noted but outcome rested on failure to meet the stay threshold
Respondents deponed that the appellant had used police to intimidate them during the trial and intended to use stay orders similarly. The court did not make a specific finding on this but dismissed the application because substantial loss and arguable appeal were not demonstrated.
Legal principles established
#- Imminent execution alone cannot justify stay; applicant must show substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and offer security
- A judgment dismissing a suit but also adopting and directing maintenance of a fixed boundary contains both negative and positive orders capable of being stayed
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24th February 2026 is dismissed with costs
- 2.It is so ordered
- On appeal from
- Kakamega Chief Magistrates Court
- ELC Number E037 OF 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munyendo v Makokha & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1597 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 24th February 2026 arising from appeal against Kakamega CM ELC E037 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1597/eng@2026-03-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.