Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (application dated 30th March, 2026 within the principal suit)· [2026] KEELC 4201 (KLR)

Momanyi & another v Ongwae & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4201 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
2 July 2026
1,628 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 Kisii dismissed an attempt to reduce a Kshs 6 million stay condition, confirming that disagreements with a judge's decision belong in an appeal, not a review.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st defendant applied under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules for review of an order made by Munyao Sila J on 5th March 2026, directing the applicant to deposit Kshs 6,000,000 in an interest-earning account as a condition for stay of execution pending appeal against a judgment of 1st October 2025 in which general damages of Kshs 3,000,000 were awarded. The applicant argued that requiring security of twice the decretal sum was an error apparent on the face of the record, and in the alternative that sufficient reason existed for review. The plaintiffs opposed, contending the application was a ploy to delay compliance and that the court had properly exercised its discretion. A. Omollo J read the impugned ruling and found that the additional Kshs 3,000,000 was not an error: the trial judge had expressly imposed it to compensate the plaintiffs for opportunity costs and the time value of money, because the stay deprived them of the use of the suit land for the two to three years the appeal would take. What the applicant identified was therefore a finding, not an error apparent on the face of the record. Following National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Ndungu Njau, the court held that a judge's alleged misapprehension of law or wrongful exercise of discretion must be corrected by appeal, not review, and that altering the stay conditions would amount to sitting on appeal over a judge of concurrent jurisdiction. Review on the ground of sufficient cause was also refused. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Kshs 6,000,000 deposit order contains an error apparent on the face of the record

Holding

No error apparent on the face of the record; the additional Kshs 3,000,000 beyond the general damages was deliberately imposed to compensate for opportunity cost and loss of use of the land during the appeal

Reasoning

The trial judge's ruling expressly justified the extra Kshs 3,000,000 as compensation for opportunity costs and time value, since the stay deprived the plaintiffs of the use of the suit land for a 2-3 year appeal period. Reading the ruling as a whole, the security was not limited to the decretal sum. The applicant misread the ruling by confining the record to the amount awarded as general damages.

p. 3
02

Whether review or appeal is the proper remedy for challenging the stay conditions

Holding

Review is not the proper remedy; the complaint concerns the exercise of discretion and must be pursued by appeal

Reasoning

Order 45 permits review for error apparent on the face of the record or sufficient reason, but what the applicant impugns is not such an error; it is a finding with which he disagrees. Altering a judge's discretionary determination on conditions of stay would amount to the court sitting on appeal from a decision of a judge of concurrent jurisdiction, which is irregular and unlawful.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A decision alleged to rest on a misapprehension of law or a wrongful exercise of discretion must be corrected by appeal, not review, unless the error is apparent on the face of the record and requires no elaborate argument.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 30th March, 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 80
  • Civil Procedure Actsections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45, Rules 1 and 2

Cases cited (1)

  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd vs Ndungu Njau
    [1996] KLR 469 (CAK)
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Momanyi & another v Ongwae & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E007 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4201 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 30th March, 2026 within the principal suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4201/eng@2026-07-02

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