Muhoho v Gitahi (Environment and Land Appeal E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2682 (KLR) (5 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2682 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYAHURURU ENVIRONMENT AND LAND APPEAL E036 OF 2025 LN MBUGUA, J MAY 5, 2026 BETWEEN PAUL NJOROGE MUHOHO ................................................................. APPELLANT AND JOHNSON WANGAI GITAHI ........................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. Before me is a notice of motion application dated 22.10.2025 where the appellant is seeking an order for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 29.9.2025 (it was actually delivered on 30.9.2025) in Nyahururu CM ELC No. E040 of 2024. The applicant is aggrieved by the said judgment whereby the respondent was ordered to make a refund of Ksh.80 000 as the land sale agreements were not enforceable. Thus, the respondent has attempted to execute the judgment by way of making the refund, and he may be evicted any time. He avers that he has constructed temporary structures thereon and he has been farming on the said land for the last 16 years. 2. In opposition thereof, the respondent filed a replying afidavit dated 7.1.2026 where he contends that save from the random food crops like maize and beans which the appellant has since harvested, the appellant has not done anything substantial on the suit land. 3. I have considered the rival arguments and submissions. The applicant contends that he has been in occupation of the suit land for the last 16 years, thus he stands to sufier substantial and irreparable loss. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2682/eng@2026-05-05 1
page 1 of 2
4. In the case of Wellington Lusweti Baraza & 47 others v Lands Limited & another [2015] eKLR a decision which was upheld at the Court of Appeal, it was stated as follows on the question of substantial loss; “ Other than cultivating on the land the Judgment debtors have not shown any substantial loss they are likely to sufier. I do find that living on the land and cultivating food crops is not suficient reason for the grant of stay pending appeal.” 5. Similarly, in the case at hand, it is not enough for the applicant to state that he has been cultivating the land for 16 years. It is not lost to this court that the identity of the suit land is still unknown as its title is still unavailable. 6. In the end, I find that the application dated 22.10.2025 is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: Bedan – Court Assistant Wahome for the Appellant Bongi for the Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2682/eng@2026-05-05 2
page 2 of 2