Salome Wanjiru Njenga (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Ngochi Kiritu) & 2 Others v Charity Muthoni Muhuri (Sued as the Administrator and Legal Representative of the Estate of Charles Mureithi Muhuri) & Daniel Njuguna Kiritu (Interested Party)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court halted an eviction in Nyahururu, protecting people who were never parties to the original land case until their appeal is heard.
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 applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment, decree and consequential orders in Nyahururu CMCELC Case No. 170 of 2018 pending the hearing and determination of their appeal
- 2.Whether the delay in filing the application was unreasonable
- 3.Whether the application is an abuse of court process
- 4.Whether the applicants should be restrained from eviction or dealing with the suit property pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
Eviction of the applicants before their appeal is heard may occasion irreparable loss since the respondent may deal with the property adversely to their interests
The applicants were not parties to the suit in which the eviction orders were made. If evicted before the appeal is determined, the respondent may deal with the suit property in ways adverse to their interest, making the loss irreparable and the appeal nugatory.
Delay
The delay in filing the application was not inordinate given the peculiar circumstances
The court weighed the circumstances, including that the applicants were not parties to the suit and that conflicting decisions exist over the property, and found the delay insufficient to deny the orders sought.
Balancing of interests and security
The applicants' irreparable injury outweighs the respondent's compensable prejudice; stay granted on condition of security of Kshs. 100,000/-
The prejudice to the respondent, if any, is compensable by costs and can be minimized by fast-tracking the appeal. The court conditioned the stay on a deposit as security for due performance, consistent with Order 42 Rule 6 parameters.
Non-parties bound by judgment
The court noted the judgment and decree adversely affected the applicants despite their not being parties to the suit
Perusal of the lower court pleadings showed the respondent did not make the applicants parties, yet the judgment issued orders adversely affecting them, raising fair-hearing concerns relevant to substantial loss.
Legal principles established
#- A party should not be prejudiced or affected by an adverse decision without being given an opportunity to be heard
- Allowing eviction of non-parties to the suit before their appeal is heard may occasion irreparable loss
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 12th February 2026, decree and all consequential orders in Nyahururu CMCELC Case No. 170 of 2018 pending hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.Injunction restraining the respondent from evicting, entering upon, selling, charging, transferring, assigning or otherwise dealing with L.R No. Nyandarua/Wawingo Salient/29 pending appeal
- 3.Applicants to deposit Kshs. 100,000/- in a joint interest-earning bank account in the names of both advocates within 30 days as security
- 4.Appeal to be processed, heard and determined within 180 days failing which it shall stand automatically dismissed with costs to the respondent unless extended for good reason
- 5.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Nyahururu
- Nyahururu CMCELC Case No. 170 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(1) & (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules - stay of execution pending appeal
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.
it is common ground that the applicants were not parties to the suit in which the judgment and decree issued against them was made
the Court in its judgment issued orders that adversely affected the applicants despite the fact that they were not parties to the suit
I do not consider the delay in filing the instant application to be so inordinate as to form a basis of denying the applicants the orders sought
whilst the applicants stand to suffer irreparable injury if the orders sought are denied, the prejudice, if any, to be occasioned to the respondent if the application is allowed is compensable by way of costs
I find the applicants' application dated 9th June 2026 to be merited and allow it in terms of prayer 5 and 6 on condition that the applicants shall within 30 days from the date of delivery of this ruling deposit in a joint interest earning bank account
the appeal shall stand automatically dismissed with costs to the respondent
The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal
Issues in the judgment
#Ruling allows 'prayer 5 and 6' but the motion as reproduced lists only prayers i-iii
Suit property name spelled inconsistently
Respondent's name appears as both Muhuru and Muhuri/Muturi
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Salome Wanjiru Njenga (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Ngochi Kiritu) & 2 Others v Charity Muthoni Muhuri (Sued as the Administrator and Legal Representative of the Estate of Charles Mureithi Muhuri) & Daniel Njuguna Kiritu (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). E.L.C Appeal No. E 015 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5932/eng@2026-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.