Namu v Njeru (Environment and Land Appeal E044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2124 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner facing eviction won a court order freezing execution of the judgment so he can keep his home while his appeal is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant demonstrated substantial loss
Substantial loss established because eviction from the residential property would destroy the substratum of the appeal.
The Applicant deponed he had occupied the suit property since 2006, established a permanent home, and faced imminent eviction with his family. The Court reasoned that eviction before determination of the appeal would destroy the substratum of the appeal, satisfying the substantial-loss threshold under Order 42 Rule 6(2).
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
The approximately six-week delay between judgment (10th June 2025) and filing (23rd July 2025) was not inordinate.
The Court took into account that the Applicant had sought certified proceedings, filed a Memorandum of Appeal, and attempted to obtain an extension of stay before the trial court, all of which showed diligence. The delay of approximately six weeks was therefore held not to be inordinate.
Whether security for due performance of the decree should be ordered
Instead of conventional security, an order maintaining the status quo sufficiently safeguards the interests of justice given the nature of the decree.
The Applicant expressed willingness to abide by any conditions. The Court held the security requirement is discretionary and meant to balance both parties' interests. Considering the decree was one for eviction from land, the Court found that preserving the status quo was the appropriate safeguard rather than a monetary or other security.
Legal principles established
#- Eviction from residential land where one has established a home constitutes substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution pending appeal.
- The conditions for stay of execution pending appeal are substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and furnishing of security.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 10th June 2025 in Runyenjes SPM ELC Case No. 10 of 2020 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.The status quo obtaining on the suit property as at the date of the ruling shall be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 3.The Appellant/Applicant to ensure the appeal is prosecuted expeditiously and file the record of appeal within sixty (60) days
- 4.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- On appeal from
- Runyenjes Senior Principal Magistrate's Court (ELC)
- SPM ELC Case No. 10 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Namu v Njeru (Environment and Land Appeal E044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2124 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 23rd July 2025 (arising from Runyenjes SPM ELC Case No. 10 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2124/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.