Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNyamira ELC Appeal (Notice of Motion dated 10th December 2025)· [2026] KEELC 3002 (KLR)

Matagaro & another v Ondieki (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Ondieki Mayiete - Deceased) (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3002 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 May 2026
1,635 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Nyamira halted the cancellation of five titles and eviction pending appeal, but only for twelve months.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nyamira (D. O. Ohungo, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 10th December 2025 seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court (B Ondego, Chief Magistrate) delivered on 20th November 2020 in Nyamira MCELC No. E019 of 2020. The Subordinate Court had ordered cancellation of five titles (North Mugirango/Bosianga/4231, 4232, 5571, 5572 and 5573) reverting them to North Mugirango/Bosianga/1118, eviction of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, an order that the D.C.I.O investigate and take action against the three Defendants, and costs. The Appellants, dissatisfied, appealed and sought stay of execution pending appeal, contending that execution was on top gear, the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and eviction would destroy the substratum of the appeal. The Respondent opposed, arguing there were no proceedings to stay and no demonstrated arguable appeal. The court noted the confusion in prayer 2 ('stay of execution of proceedings') and construed it as a plea for stay of execution of the judgment and decree, since no proceedings remained to be stayed after judgment. Applying Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court found the applicants would suffer substantial loss if cancellation, eviction and investigation were enforced before the appeal was determined, and that the application was filed without unreasonable delay. The court granted a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, limited to twelve months or until determination of the appeal, whichever occurred first, and ordered the Appellants to bear the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the prayer seeking 'stay of execution of proceedings' was competent

Holding

The court read the confusing prayer as seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree, since there were no proceedings to be stayed after judgment.

Reasoning

The court noted the prayer confusingly combined 'stay of execution' and 'of proceedings'. Since judgment had been delivered and the Subordinate Court proceedings had ended, there were no proceedings capable of being stayed. The only logical reading was an application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree pending appeal.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2)

Holding

The court found substantial loss would result from cancellation of titles, eviction and criminal investigation before the appeal was determined; the application was filed without unreasonable delay; and it found merit in the application.

Reasoning

The decree ordered cancellation of five titles, eviction of the applicants, and investigation by the D.C.I.O. Enforcing those orders before the appeal was concluded and, if the appeal later succeeded, would cause substantial loss. Judgment was delivered on 20th November 2025 and the application filed on 10th December 2025, so there was no unreasonable delay. The court granted a time-limited stay of twelve months to encourage expeditious prosecution of the appeal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Substantial loss is the corner stone of the jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending appeal.
  • An applicant for stay pending appeal must demonstrate substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and offer security for due performance of the decree.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Nyamira MCELC No. E019 of 2020 granted
  2. 2.The stay order shall, unless extended by the Court, remain in force for a period of only twelve months from the date of the ruling or until the appeal is determined, whichever occurs first
  3. 3.The Appellants shall bear costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6(1) and 6(2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya)
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & another
    [1986] KLR 410; [1986] eKLR
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Ndura & another v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited
    [2025] KEELC 91 (KLR)
  • Mose v Omenta
    [2025] KEHC 3778 (KLR)
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd v Kigaita Ngare Unduthu & 36 others
    [2020] eKLR
On appeal from
Subordinate Court (Chief Magistrate's Court), Nyamira
Nyamira MCELC No. E019 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Matagaro & another v Ondieki (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Ondieki Mayiete - Deceased) (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3002 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nyamira ELC Appeal (Notice of Motion dated 10th December 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3002/eng@2026-05-20

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