Kaula v Muasa (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Ndinda Muasa - Deceased) & another (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3071 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a stay of execution because the applicant could not show he would suffer real harm without one.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
No delay - the application was filed a few days before the 45-day stay granted at trial lapsed
Judgment was delivered on 5th September 2025 with a 45-day stay; the motion was filed on 16th October 2025, before that stay lapsed, so the delay limb was satisfied.
Whether the Applicant demonstrated substantial loss rendering the appeal nugatory
No substantial loss demonstrated; if the appeal succeeds the title will revert to Mukulu Kaula and the appeal will not be nugatory
Both families have lived on and developed the suit property for over 50 years; equal sharing gives each family about 14½ acres, and Serah Mueni Muasa's 9 acres come from the Applicant's own sale. There was no evidence the Respondents would sell their portion, and success on appeal would restore the title, so absence of stay would not render the appeal nugatory.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction to grant stay pending appeal, and its demonstration is indispensable
Court orders
#- 1.Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court at Kilungu
- MELC Case No. E020 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the Principal Magistrate's Court; application for stay of execution pending appeal
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment in MELC Case No. E020 of 2023 pending appeal, and restraint on interference with the register of Machakos/Ulu/71
The Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss; the appeal would not be rendered nugatory absent stay
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the Respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
As demonstration of substantial loss is the cornerstone for grant of stay pending appeal and the Applicant having not demonstrated such loss, I find that the application is devoid of merit. I proceed to dismiss the same with costs to the Respondents.
substantial loss is the cornerstone of both jurisdictions. That is what has to be prevented, because such loss would render the appeal nugatory. Therefore, it is necessary to preserve the status quo.
The principles for grant of stay pending appeal are firstly that the Applicant has to bring the application without unreasonable delay. Secondly the Applicant has to demonstrate that he will sufier substantial loss if stay is not granted. Thirdly there has to be security given as may ultimately be binding upon the Applicant on the decree.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kaula v Muasa (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Ndinda Muasa - Deceased) & another (Environment and Land Appeal E020 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3071 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 16th October, 2025 (appeal from MELC Case No. E020 of 2023, Kilungu Principal Magistrate's Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3071/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.