Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCLA Suit No. E062 of 2025· MSA. ELCA. E062 OF 2025

Anisa Said Rashid v Abdulwahab Abrar Sheikh

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2026
JOJ. O. Olola
1,420 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court ruled that filing an appeal does not stop a judgment from being enforced, so a demolished house will not be rebuilt.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (J.O. Olola J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2025 by Anisa Said Rashid, the Appellant, seeking an order compelling Abdulwahab Abrar Sheikh, the Respondent, to restore her demolished house to its former condition pending the hearing of her appeal against a judgment of the lower court delivered on 21st August 2025. That judgment had ordered the Appellant to vacate the suit land, remove her house within 90 days, and pay ground rent arrears of Ksh 140,000, failing which the house would be demolished with OCS Nyali ensuring compliance. The Respondent opposed, asserting the demolition was done only after the 90 days expired and in compliance with the decree, no stay having been granted. The court also determined the surviving limb of a preliminary objection arguing, under Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, that the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the incoming firm of advocates (J.O. Magolo & Co.) was fatally defective; the court rejected this, holding the Rule protects outgoing advocates but does not bar an aggrieved litigant from appealing through new advocates. On the main motion, the court applied Order 42 rule 6(1), holding that an appeal does not automatically stay execution, that no stay was in place when the decree was executed, and dismissed the motion with costs to the Respondent. The court noted the Appellant had abandoned her earlier stay application dated 23rd October 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of Order 9 rule 9 CPR on post-judgment change of advocates

Holding

The Rule protects outgoing advocates and prevents procedural confusion, but does not invalidate a Memorandum of Appeal filed by new advocates

Reasoning

The court held the purpose of the rule is to protect advocates who handled the case up to judgment, particularly regarding unpaid fees, and to prevent procedural confusion in post-judgment execution. It was not intended to bar an aggrieved litigant from appealing through a different firm. The preliminary objection was therefore dismissed.

p. 5
02

Whether demolition of the Appellant's house amounted to contempt given the pending appeal

Holding

No, because no stay of execution had been granted; an appeal does not automatically stay a decree

Reasoning

The trial court's judgment ordered the Appellant to vacate and demolish her house within 90 days, failing which the Respondent could demolish under police supervision. The Appellant's stay application was abandoned and the court had declined to certify it urgent. The demolition occurred only after expiry of the 90 days, in compliance with the decree.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution of the judgment appealed from
  • Order 9 rule 9 CPR does not bar an aggrieved litigant from filing an appeal through a different firm of advocates, nor render the memorandum of appeal incompetent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection relating to the Memorandum of Appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion dated 18th December 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
On appeal from
Lower Court (trial court)
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from the lower court in land matters

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Anisa Said Rashid v Abdulwahab Abrar Sheikh", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLA Suit No. E062 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5620/eng@2026-09-24

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