Kamau v Kuibita (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 158 of 2009) [2026] KEELC 2752 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court allowed eviction and demolition against a land occupier because he had no stay of execution and cannot both seek review and appeal the same decision.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether eviction and demolition orders should issue in enforcement of the decree absent a stay
Yes. There being no order staying execution, and the excision and beacon placement already completed, the Plaintiff is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the decree.
The Court had ordered on 21st November 2023 that 0.024 acres be excised from the Defendant's parcel and incorporated into the Plaintiff's parcel, with titles rectified. The Defendant's review application was dismissed on 2nd October 2025. He filed a Notice of Appeal but the Court held he cannot both seek review and appeal the same decision. No stay of execution was in place. Order 22 Rule 29(1) empowers removal of a person bound by a decree who refuses to vacate, so the eviction, demolition and title-surrender orders followed.
Whether the Defendant's intended appeal warrants holding execution in abeyance
No. The Defendant's right of appeal does not bar execution where no stay has been granted, and he cannot pursue an appeal against a decision whose review was already determined.
The Defendant argued his appeal would be rendered nugatory and that he had lived on the property for over twenty years. The Court rejected this, noting the review application against the 21st November 2023 ruling had been dismissed, that a party cannot have both review and appeal against the same decision, and that no stay of execution had been ordered. The Court relied on Order 22 Rule 29(1) and the Al Yusra decision on enforcement of decrees.
Legal principles established
#- A party cannot simultaneously apply for review and appeal against the same decision.
- A decree holder is entitled to enjoy the fruits of judgment once any stay is lifted or lapses, and in the absence of a stay the decree becomes enforceable.
Court orders
#- 1.An eviction order issued against the Respondent from the encroached area of the suit property
- 2.The Respondent to demolish and remove all permanent structures erected on the Applicant's property within thirty (30) days, or in the alternative, the Applicant and/or his agents authorised to demolish and remove the structures at the Respondent's costs
- 3.The area OCS directed to provide security during the eviction and demolition
- 4.The Respondent directed to surrender the original title deed and sign the mutation forms to effect the excision already conducted
- 5.In default of compliance, the Land Registrar to cancel the Respondent's current title deed and issue a new one in line with the Court Ruling and the excision already conducted
- 6.Costs of the applications borne by the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Enforcement of the Court's own judgment and decree under the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules (Sections 1A and 1B; Order 22 Rule 29)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau v Kuibita (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 158 of 2009) [2026] KEELC 2752 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2752/eng@2026-05-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.