Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNyahururu ELC Appeal (notice of motion dated 22.10.2025) arising from Nyahururu CM ELC No. E040 of 2024· [2026] KEELC 2682 (KLR)

Muhoho v Gitahi (Environment and Land Appeal E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2682 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 May 2026
LMLucy N. Mbugua
387 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Nyahururu refused to pause a Ksh.80,000 refund order, ruling that simply farming land for 16 years is not proof of serious loss.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellant moved the Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu by notice of motion dated 22.10.2025 seeking stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 30.9.2025 in Nyahururu CM ELC No. E040 of 2024, in which the respondent was ordered to refund Ksh.80,000 after land sale agreements were found unenforceable. The appellant, aggrieved, feared eviction and execution by way of the refund, and asserted that he had constructed temporary structures and farmed the suit land for 16 years. The respondent opposed via a replying affidavit dated 7.1.2026, contending that apart from random food crops such as maize and beans which the appellant had harvested, the appellant had done nothing substantial on the land. The court considered the rival arguments and applied the decision in Wellington Lusweti Baraza & 47 others v Lands Limited & another [2015] eKLR, where it was stated that living on land and cultivating food crops is not sufficient reason for the grant of stay pending appeal absent proof of substantial loss. Holding that it was not enough for the applicant to state he had cultivated the land for 16 years, and noting that the identity of the suit land remained unknown as its title was unavailable, the court found the application unmerited, dismissed it with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether substantial loss was demonstrated to warrant stay of execution

Holding

No substantial loss was shown; mere cultivation of the land for 16 years does not suffice

Reasoning

The applicant relied on 16 years of occupation and farming, including temporary structures, to argue substantial and irreparable loss. The court, guided by the Wellington Lusweti Baraza decision, held that cultivating food crops and living on land does not establish substantial loss. It further noted that the identity of the suit land is unknown because its title is unavailable, undermining the claimed loss. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Living on and cultivating land is not sufficient reason to grant stay pending appeal where no substantial loss beyond cultivation is shown

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated 22.10.2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Wellington Lusweti Baraza & 47 others v Lands Limited & another
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Nyahururu Chief Magistrate's Court (ELC)
CM ELC No. E040 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending appeal (order for stay sought from the Environment and Land Court on appeal from the magistrates' court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muhoho v Gitahi (Environment and Land Appeal E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2682 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nyahururu ELC Appeal (notice of motion dated 22.10.2025) arising from Nyahururu CM ELC No. E040 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2682/eng@2026-05-05

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