Mureu v Wambugu & another (Being sued as Guardians of Mary Wanjiru Wambugu) (Environment and Land Appeal E102 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3959 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court stopped enforcement of a land judgment, but only because the losing party agreed to deposit Kshs.500,000 as security while appealing.
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 application for stay of execution pending appeal is merited
- 2.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
The delay of less than two months between judgment (15th December 2025) and the application (3rd February 2026) was not inordinate
The court compared the date of delivery of the trial judgment with the date of filing of the application and the memorandum of appeal, found a time difference of less than two months, and held that timeous filing is one limb of the Order 42 Rule 6 threshold which the appellant satisfied.
Whether the Appellant demonstrated substantial loss
The Appellant did not demonstrate substantial loss; there was no evidence that the Respondents intended to sell the suit parcel to a third party
The court weighed the appellant's claim of eviction from land occupied since 2001 against the respondents' averment that they intended to build homes and that a government caveat prevented sale. Finding no evidence of intended sale or alienation, the court was not convinced substantial loss had been shown.
Whether stay should issue conditioned on security for due performance of the decree
Stay was granted conditional on the Appellant depositing Kshs.500,000/= as security for costs in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days
Relying on the competing-interests balancing principle, the court noted the appellant's stated willingness to provide security and exercised its judicious discretion to grant stay on security conditions, with automatic lapse in default and a direction to file the record of appeal within 60 days.
Legal principles established
#- In an application for stay, the court balances the successful litigant's right to the fruits of judgment against the unsuccessful litigant's right to have his appeal not rendered nugatory, and security for due performance of the decree is the usual mechanism
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment of Hon. D. Mosse delivered on 15th December 2025 in Molo CMELC No. E006 of 2024 is granted, on condition that the Appellant deposits Kshs.500,000/= being security for costs in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the Advocates for the Appellant and for the Respondents within forty-five (45) days from the date of the ruling, in default the orders of stay shall lapse automatically
- 2.The Applicant is directed to file the Record of Appeal within sixty (60) days so that the Appeal can be heard expeditiously
- 3.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the Appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Molo Chief Magistrate's Court (CM ELC)
- E006 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
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.
The upshot of the matter is that I find merit in the application and the same is allowed
a stay of execution of the judgment of Hon. D. Mosse delivered on 15th December 2025 in Molo CMELC No. E006 of 2024; is granted
on condition that the Appellant does deposit Kshs500,000/= being security for costs in a joint interest earning account in the names of the Advocates for the Appellant and for the Respondents within forty-five (45) days from the date of this ruling
That cost of this application shall abide the outcome of the Appeal.
this court is convinced that the Appellant has not demonstrated that he will suffer substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted
these two competing interests should always be balanced in a bid to balance the two competing interests, the Courts usually make an Order for suitable security for the due performance of the Decree as the parties wait for the outcome of the Appeal
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the Appellant's submissions are dated 22nd May, 2025, which predates the trial judgment of 15th December, 2025 and the application of 3rd February, 2026
The Respondent's submissions are dated 11th May, 2026 while the reference in the judgment body says the court is deciding whether the Appellant moved promptly 'after delivery of judgment'; also the 1st Respondent is referred to in the singular although there are two Respondents
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mureu v Wambugu & another (Being sued as Guardians of Mary Wanjiru Wambugu) (Environment and Land Appeal E102 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3959 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA E102 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3959/eng@2026-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.