Stephen Cherono alias Saeed Saeed v Daniel Ladama Ruto
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to pause execution of a land judgment because the applicant could not show real, specific loss.
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 amended application dated 23rd May 2025 meets the threshold for granting orders of stay of execution of the judgment of the lower court pending the appeal
- 2.Who shall bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a)
The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss; the decree contained no order for sale or transfer of the suit property, the respondent was already in occupation, and the alleged threatened disposal was unsupported by evidence
The court examined the trial court's decree, which granted a permanent injunction, a declaration of trespass, general damages of Kshs. 200,000 and costs. It noted the respondent had already taken possession in execution, a fact not denied, and that the decree did not direct sale or transfer of the land. The applicant's apprehension of disposal was speculative with no demonstrated nexus to the decree.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
The period between judgment on 28th November 2024 and filing of the initial application on 18th December 2024 did not constitute unreasonable delay; the later amendment did not alter that finding
The court found the delay of roughly three weeks between delivery of the judgment and the filing of the initial application reasonable, and held that the subsequent amendment of the application on 23rd May 2025 did not in itself change that conclusion.
Whether security for due performance needed to be considered
Having failed on substantial loss, the court found it unnecessary to consider the requirement of security
Because the application failed at the threshold condition of substantial loss, which has been held to be the cornerstone of stay of execution, the court declined to proceed to consider the security requirement under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b).
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction to grant stay of execution and must be demonstrated with specific details, not mere claims
- A court cannot stay that which has already been done in execution of a decree
- Substantial loss must be determined by reference to the decree and the consequences of its execution, not speculative or collateral consequences
Court orders
#- 1.The amended application dated 23rd May 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application shall be costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Eldoret Chief Magistrate's Court
- Land Case No. E078 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from the Chief Magistrate's Court; stay of execution sought under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution and/or further execution of the ex parte judgment delivered on 28th November 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the main appeal
Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, the cornerstone of the jurisdiction to grant stay; the respondent is already in occupation and the decree contains no order for sale or transfer of the suit property
Costs
Costs of the application will be costs in the cause, as the appeal itself is yet to be heard on its merits
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 is that, I find no merit in the application dated 23rd May, 2026, and the same is dismissed. As the appeal itself is yet to be heard on its merits, the costs of the application will be costs in the cause.
In my view, this court cannot stay that which has already been done.
The Court must determine substantial loss by reference to the decree and the consequences of its execution, rather than on the basis of speculative or collateral consequences.
Substantial loss in its various forms, is the cornerstone of both jurisdictions for granting stay.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory findings on substantial loss
Conflicting judgment dates in the application
Submissions dated 2026, apparently a typographical error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Cherono alias Saeed Saeed v Daniel Ladama Ruto", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No. E055 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5734/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.