Mangeni (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joel Abuti Eshitashe - Deceased) v National Bank of Kenya & another (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3828 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Busia court refused to lift an injunction protecting land pending appeal, but gave the appellant six months to progress the appeal or lose the protection.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the injunction orders should be set aside for material non-disclosure and denial of the right to be heard
The application failed; the applicant was not a party to the proceedings in which the orders were made, no allegations were levelled against it, and the non-disclosure was not attributable to the appellant
The court held that the appellant sought orders only against the 1st respondent with whom she was litigating and could not be faulted for failing to join a stranger. The duty to disclose the sale lay with the 1st respondent. Further, the applicant did not file a supplementary affidavit to controvert the appellant's averment that she was a stranger to the applicant's interest, so the alleged non-disclosure was unsubstantiated.
Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the ruling of 2nd April 2025
No; the alleged error was an apparent contradiction in the findings, but the entire ruling disclosed no basis for concluding the final orders were unintended
The applicant claimed the court had declared it superfluous to grant the injunctive prayers yet allowed them. The court held that determining intention required reading the whole ruling, and nothing suggested the orders issued were not intended.
Whether the delay in prosecuting the appeal justified setting aside the injunction
No; the explanation of negotiations was uncontroverted and the delay was not so inordinate as to warrant setting aside the orders
The appellant explained the delay as occasioned by negotiations with the 1st respondent, which explanation was not controverted. Processing of appeals under Order 42 is a joint responsibility of the court and parties, so the appellant could not be solely blamed, though parties were urged to comply with timelines.
Whether the stay of proceedings in the lower court should be lifted
Refused; no firm basis was laid beyond the claim of non-participation
The applicant's only ground was that the order was issued without its participation, which the court had already found insufficient given the applicant was not a party to the proceedings in which the orders were sought.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for setting aside orders on non-disclosure cannot rely on a party's failure to disclose transactions affecting the suit property to defeat orders issued against the primary actor in the suit
- An error apparent on the face of the record requires interrogating the entire ruling to establish that the final orders were not those intended by the court
- Processing of appeals under Order 42 is a joint responsibility of both the Court and the parties, so a party may not be solely blamed for delay
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant, with the assistance of the Deputy Registrar of the court, to within six (6) months from the date of delivery of the ruling process and prepare the appeal for hearing and determination
- 2.Failing compliance within six months, unless the Court extends time for good reason, the injunctive orders shall stand vacated/discharged
- 3.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 15th September 2025 is dismissed with costs to the appellant/respondent
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Busia (Environment and Land)
- Busia ELC CMC No. E116 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules (jurisdiction to vary, set aside or discharge an interim injunction) and appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mangeni (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joel Abuti Eshitashe - Deceased) v National Bank of Kenya & another (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3828 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 15th September 2025 in the appeal arising from Busia ELC CMC No. E116 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3828/eng@2026-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.