Bundi & 4 others v Chelang'a & 3 others (Sued as the personal representatives and beneficiaries of the Estate of Ishmael Juma Chelang'a - Deceased) (Environment and Land Case 52 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3847 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kitale refused to stop execution of a land judgment because the defendants delayed over a month and offered no proof of loss or security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application was filed within a reasonable time
It was not; no explanation was offered for the delay of over a month between judgment and filing
The judgment was delivered on 2/2/2026 and the application filed on 18/3/2026. The court held that a stay application must be brought within a reasonable time, and the applicant offered no explanation for the intervening period. The law sets no minimum or maximum delay; the circumstances of each case govern, but unexplained delay weighs against the applicant.
Whether substantial loss and security were demonstrated
Neither was established; execution per se is not substantial loss and security is mandatory
Relying on James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto, the court held that mere execution is not the same as substantial loss; the plaintiffs were already in occupation of the land, and the applicant did not show the decree had been executed. Security, per Arun C. Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia, is mandatory and a sign of good faith, but none was offered.
Whether the medical evidence established sufficient reason for non-attendance
It did not; the sick sheet was unsigned, not a medical report, and did not cover the co-defendants
The annexure SJC-1(a) bore no signature of a hospital administrator or medical doctor, did not show the nature of the sickness or admission on 2/2/2026, and the supporting affidavit was not sworn on behalf of the rest of the defendants, for whom no explanation of non-attendance was given. The court found the explanation lacking in good faith and plausibility.
Whether the defendants' right to be heard under Article 50(1) was violated
It was not; the defendants were granted opportunities to be heard and did not explain why they failed to take them
The defendants had opportunities to be heard on two occasions: an earlier hearing date adjourned at the plaintiffs' instance, and the 2/2/2026 date fixed by consent. Counsel was heard on the adjournment request and opted to close the defence case. The court held the applicants could not claim injustice without explaining why they did not take the opportunities offered.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking a stay of execution must file the application within a reasonable time, demonstrate substantial loss, and offer security for due realization of the decree
- Execution per se does not amount to substantial loss
- Setting aside is a discretionary power exercised only in deserving cases, not to assist a party who deliberately obstructed the course of justice
- Sufficient reason must be reasonable, logical and prudent; where good faith is doubtful the court will hesitate to exercise its discretion in favour of that party
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18/3/2026 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The file is marked closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(e) of the Constitution (invoked by the applicants)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bundi & 4 others v Chelang'a & 3 others (Sued as the personal representatives and beneficiaries of the Estate of Ishmael Juma Chelang'a - Deceased) (Environment and Land Case 52 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3847 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kitale ELC No. 52 of 2019 (OS). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3847/eng@2026-06-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.