Kerich v Nyingi (Environment and Land Appeal E089 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1631 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru land court paused an eviction pending appeal, but only after the appellant deposited Kshs 200,000 as security within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant satisfied the Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions for stay of execution
Stay granted conditionally: delay was not unreasonable (application filed 12 days after judgment); substantial loss was arguable given possible eviction from her home, but security of Kshs. 200,000/= was required to balance the competing interests
The court found the application filed timeously. Although mere eviction under a regular judgment is not per se substantial loss, the risk that the applicant might be evicted from her home and find nothing to return to if she succeeds on appeal justified a stay, conditioned on security. The court balanced the successful litigant's right to the fruits of judgment against safeguarding the appeal from being rendered nugatory.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
Yes - judgment was delivered on 20th November 2025 and the application and appeal were filed on 2nd December 2025
The court compared the date of delivery of the trial judgment with the date of filing the memorandum of appeal and application, concluding the application was filed timeously and therefore the delay requirement of Order 42 Rule 6(2) was met.
Security for due performance of the decree
Applicant to deposit Kshs. 200,000/= in a joint interest-earning account of the advocates within 30 days, failing which the stay lapses
The court exercised its discretion judiciously, taking into account the applicant's stated willingness to abide by conditions and the respondent's competing interest, and fixed a deposit lower than the Kshs. 500,000/= damages plus costs the respondent sought.
Legal principles established
#- An application for stay of execution must satisfy the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2): substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree
- Eviction pursuant to a regular judgment following a full adjudication is not per se substantial loss; competing interests of the successful litigant and the appellant must be balanced, usually through security
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 20th November 2025 in Molo CM ELC Case No. E048 of 2025 granted on condition that the Applicant deposits Kshs. 200,000/= in a joint interest-earning account of the Advocates on record within 30 days, failing which the order lapses
- 2.Costs of the application to abide by the outcome of the appeal
- 3.Applicant to fast track the hearing of the Appeal
- On appeal from
- Molo Chief Magistrate's Court
- Molo Chief Magistrate's ELC Case No. E048 of 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kerich v Nyingi (Environment and Land Appeal E089 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1631 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1631/eng@2026-03-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.