Tokali & 9 others v Komis & another
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped an eviction pending appeal because removing families from the land would make the appeal pointless, but only if they deposit Kshs. 500,000 security.
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 have satisfied the threshold for the grant of stay pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay
A delay of approximately two months, with a Notice of Appeal lodged and steps taken to obtain certified copies, was not inordinate or unreasonable.
The judgment was delivered on 28 January 2026 and the application filed on 26 March 2026. The court held that in the circumstances, two months could not without more be characterized as inordinate, since the Applicants had meanwhile lodged a Notice of Appeal and taken steps towards obtaining certified judgment, decree and proceedings.
Whether substantial loss was demonstrated
Yes - eviction from land on which the Applicants reside would alter the factual substratum of the appeal and render it nugatory.
The decree was coercive and possessory, not monetary. Execution would mean eviction of the Applicants and their families from land they occupy, with homes and developments, materially altering possession before the appellate court rules. This exceeds the ordinary consequences of execution and is not merely theoretical.
Whether security for due performance of the decree was required and given
Security is a substantive safeguard even for a non-monetary decree; the court fixed security for costs at Kshs. 500,000.
Although the counterclaim produced no monetary decree, Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) still requires security. The court exercised its discretion to fashion security commensurate with the circumstances, conditioning the stay on deposit of Kshs. 500,000 within thirty days, failing which the stay lapses automatically.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction to grant stay pending appeal.
- Substantial loss does not refer to the ordinary consequences of executing a decree, but to something additional and distinct.
- Where the decree is possessory and coercive, eviction would displace the factual substratum of the appeal and justify a stay.
- The absence of a monetary component in a decree does not dispense with the requirement for security; the court may fashion appropriate security.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 28th January 2026 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal
- 2.Status quo prevailing over Kilifi/Kijipwa/372, 373 and 374 to be maintained pending the intended appeal
- 3.Applicants to deposit in court security for costs of Kshs. 500,000 within thirty (30) days
- 4.In default of compliance, the stay and status quo orders to lapse automatically and the application to stand dismissed with costs
- 5.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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.
There shall be an order staying execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 28th January 2026 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal
The status quo prevailing over the suit properties known as Kilifi/Kijipwa/372, Kilifi/Kijipwa/373 and Kilifi/Kijipwa/374 shall be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
The Applicants shall deposit in court security for costs in the sum of Kshs. 500,000 within thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of this ruling
Such an order neither confers proprietary rights upon the Applicants nor reverses the judgment. It merely prevents the physical alteration of the subject matter before the intended appeal is heard and determined
This finding is confined to the question of preservation of the subject matter pending appeal and does not, in any manner, constitute a reconsideration of the merits of the judgment
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering restarts mid-ruling (paras 12-19 repeat after para 20 of quoted authority)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tokali & 9 others v Komis & another", Case Analysis (2026). Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 293 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6158/eng@2026-10-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.