Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedKitale ELC Case No. 34 of 2020· [2026] KEELC 4984 (KLR)

Muigai & 2 others v Turbo Munyaka Co-operative Society Limited & another (Environment and Land Case 34 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4984 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
31 July 2026
2,433 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kitale Environment and Land Court refused to pause execution of an eviction judgment because the applicants delayed, offered no security, and failed to prove real loss.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants moved the Environment and Land Court at Kitale by notice of motion dated 10/5/2026 seeking stay of execution or implementation of the judgment and decree delivered by Hon. Justice C.K. Nzili on 18/3/2026 in Kitale ELC No. 34 of 2020, together with all consequential orders, pending an intended appeal. They contended they had developed and occupied the suit properties (parcels in Munyaka Trading Centre, including Nos. 89 and 43), that eviction and release of leases to third parties would render the appeal nugatory, that the application was filed timeously, and that they were willing to provide security. The 1st respondent opposed, arguing the suit was dismissed with a negative order incapable of being stayed, the 2nd and 3rd applicants had no proprietary interest, a 90-day statutory notice under the Land Act had been served, the 2nd applicant had already vacated Plot No. 89, and no security had been offered. Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court found the applicants failed on all three limbs: they did not demonstrate substantial loss through cogent and tangible evidence of irreparable harm compensable only by preservation of the status quo; they waited from 18/3/2026 until 10/5/2026 without explaining the inordinate delay, apparently acting only upon receipt of the eviction notice; and they offered no security beyond general willingness to comply. The court also noted there was no evidence of a live appeal at the Court of Appeal. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substantial loss

Holding

Not demonstrated; photographs show only temporary structures with no evidence of ongoing businesses or value of developments

Reasoning

The court found the photographs showed temporary structures and no evidence of ongoing businesses. It could not assess the nature, particulars and value of the alleged extensive developments, and held execution is a lawful process that does not itself amount to substantial loss.

p. 11
02

Delay

Holding

Inordinate delay of about 53 days from judgment to application, unexplained, apparently triggered by the eviction notice

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered on 18/3/2026 and notice of appeal filed 31/3/2026, but the application came only on 10/5/2026 without explanation. The court held the delay was inordinate and that the 90-day vacation period allowed by the judgment was sufficient time to file.

p. 11
03

Security

Holding

None offered beyond a general willingness to abide by court directions

Reasoning

Apart from stating willingness to comply with any court order, the applicants offered no security. Citing Focin Motorcycle, the court held security is a mark of bona fides showing the application is not merely intended to deny the respondents the fruits of their judgment.

p. 12

Legal principles established

#
  • Filing an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution; the applicant must establish the Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions
  • Substantial loss requires cogent and tangible evidence of irreparable loss not compensable in damages

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 10/5/2026 is dismissed with costs to the respondents
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court
Kitale ELC No. 34 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muigai & 2 others v Turbo Munyaka Co-operative Society Limited & another (Environment and Land Case 34 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4984 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kitale ELC Case No. 34 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4984/eng@2026-07-31

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