Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedKapsabet Environment and Land Case No. E006 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 1624 (KLR)

Cheruiyot v Maiyo & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1624 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
18 March 2026
GOG.M.A. Ong'ondo
1,464 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kapsabet halted a land case until an appeal over a res judicata ruling is decided at the Court of Appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet determined a Notice of Motion dated 14 November 2025 by the applicant, Elizabeth Jebet Cheruiyot, the 1st defendant in the suit, seeking a stay of proceedings in Kapsabet Environment and Land Case No. E006 of 2025 pending the hearing and determination of her appeal to the Court of Appeal, plus costs. The appeal targeted the court's ruling of 30 September 2025 dismissing her preliminary objection and grounds of opposition based on the doctrine of res judicata. The respondent/plaintiff opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by her counsel, Margaret Ingutia, arguing that the appeal filed on 20 November 2025 had not been prosecuted, that filing an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay, that stay is a drastic and exceptional remedy, and that an interim preservation order was already in place. Both sides filed written submissions; the applicant relied on Kenya Wildlife Service vs James Mutembei and Mukisa Biscuits, while the respondent relied on Global Tours and Travels and Ngetich vs Goren. The court framed the single issue of whether the applicant deserved the stay of proceedings and costs. It held that stay is rooted in Order 42 Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, that the Notice of Appeal was duly filed, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security need not be determined at this stage. Balancing the competing claims and the applicant's right of appeal, the court found the application merited, allowed it in terms of the principal order of stay of proceedings, and directed that costs abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for stay of proceedings pending appeal

Holding

The application was allowed in terms of the principal order of stay of proceedings, in the best interests of justice

Reasoning

The court noted that stay of proceedings is governed by Order 42 Rules 6 and 7, requiring substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security. An appeal was duly filed by Notice of Appeal against the ruling of 30 September 2025 dismissing the applicant's preliminary objection on res judicata. The application was lodged on 14 November 2025 without undue delay. Weighing the applicant's right of appeal under Articles 48, 50(1) and 25(c) against the competing claims, and balancing the interests of justice as in Somak Travels, the court found the application merited and granted the stay of proceedings.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal does not automatically operate as a stay but the court may order a stay for sufficient cause
  • Stay of proceedings pending appeal is rooted in Order 42 Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and the applicant must satisfy the triple principles of substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and security

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of proceedings in Kapsabet Environment and Land Case No. E006 of 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal at the Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015; Articles 10(2), 48, 50(1) and 25(c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cheruiyot v Maiyo & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1624 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet Environment and Land Case No. E006 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1624/eng@2026-03-18

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