Matu v Karuri (Environment and Land Appeal E085 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5201 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Malindi refused to pause enforcement of a Ksh. 500,000 judgment because the appellant showed no real harm beyond simply having to pay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
The application fails because the Applicant did not demonstrate substantial loss; a monetary decree's ordinary consequence of execution is not substantial loss, and no material was placed showing the decretal sum would be irrecoverable.
Order 42 Rule 6(2) requires substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security. The court held that substantial loss is the cornerstone, and mere apprehension of execution is insufficient. The decree was monetary; the Applicant did not show loss beyond ordinary execution or that refund would be impossible if the appeal succeeded. A proposed jurisdictional challenge (pendency before the BPRT) does not itself establish substantial loss. The court found it unnecessary to consider the remaining conditions once substantial loss failed.
Legal principles established
#- The cornerstone of an application for stay pending appeal is the demonstration of substantial loss, which must be shown by evidence, not mere apprehension.
- The mere fact that an Applicant is required to satisfy a monetary decree before an appeal is heard does not constitute substantial loss.
- A proposed jurisdictional challenge on appeal, however important, does not by itself establish substantial loss for purposes of Order 42 Rule 6(2).
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 9th October 2025 is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Thika
- ELC Appeal Case No E085 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (inherent jurisdiction to stay execution pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Omaido v Mungau & another (Environment and Land Case E014 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3525 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3525 (KLR)10 Jun 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matu v Karuri (Environment and Land Appeal E085 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5201 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion application dated 9th October 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5201/eng@2026-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.