Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Appeal No. E099 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 6083 (KLR)

Jane Mukeya Kiiabi v Stephen Ochieng Mukhuna & Anthony Mungoma Mukhwana

Environment and Land Court
23 September 2026
ANA. Nyukuri
1,093 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega refused to pause an eviction, ruling that facing lawful execution is not enough to justify a stay pending appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega on a notice of motion dated 31st October 2025 in which the appellant, Jane Mukeya Kiiabi, sought stay of execution of the judgment delivered in Kakamega MCELC No. E221 of 2023 pending the hearing and determination of her appeal. She argued that she risked eviction from land parcel No. Isukha/Shirere/1590, purchased by her husband in 1981, that she had lived on the property for 45 years, that the respondent had twisted facts to portray himself as a trespasser, and that her appeal had high chances of success. The respondents opposed, contending that the judgment was valid and executable, that no substantial loss or security had been demonstrated, and that the balance of convenience favoured them. Justice A. Nyukuri identified a sole issue: whether the applicant met the threshold for stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Applying James Wangalwa and Tropical Commodities, the court held that imminent execution is not itself substantial loss; the applicant had abandoned her adverse possession claim, the land was registered in the respondent's name, and her only alleged loss was the eviction lawfully ordered by the trial court. The application was dismissed with costs on 23rd September 2026.

Key legal issues

#
01

Threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6

Holding

Application dismissed; no substantial loss demonstrated since the applicant abandoned her adverse possession claim and has no claim over land registered in the respondent's name

Reasoning

The court restated the Order 42 Rule 6 requirements: substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security. It found the applicant's only alleged loss was eviction lawfully ordered by the trial court. Having abandoned her adverse possession claim, her continued occupation of land registered in the respondent's name had no bearing, so no arguable appeal or specific substantial loss was shown.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Imminent execution alone cannot justify stay pending appeal; the applicant must show substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and willingness to furnish security

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion dated 31st October 2025 with costs
On appeal from
Kakamega Magistrates' Court (MCELC)
MCELC No. E221 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jane Mukeya Kiiabi v Stephen Ochieng Mukhuna & Anthony Mungoma Mukhwana", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No. E099 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6083/eng@2026-09-23

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