Mwiti & another v Nduati & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4198 (KLR)

2. The grounds in support of the application are that the eviction orders issued by this court on 18.3.2026 unreasonably gave the appellant short timelines, that the impunged orders directing eviction within fourteen (14) days are manifestly excessive, commercially impracticable, and incapable of compliance, having regard to the applicant’s substantial capital investment on the suit premises, including fixed and semi-permanent structures, specialised machinery, and ongoing commercial operations. The applicants stand to sufier immensely unless the orders sought are granted. The 1st plaintifi has sworn a supporting afidavit to buttress the averments of the applicants. 3. The respondents opposed the application vide the replying afidavit of the 4th respondent. They aver that there was a consent judgment of 27.5.2022 in which the applicants were to vacate the suit premises by 31.5.2025 and that no appeal was lodged against the said judgment. They add that the question of stay was dealt with by this court on 18.3.2026. 4. The question falling for determination is whether, the prayer for stay of execution of the ruling dated 18.3.2026 is merited. In the case of Selestica Limited v Gold Rock Development Ltd [2015], the court stated that; “ Stay of execution pending appeal is governed by Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The power to grant an application for stay of execution pending appeal is a discretionary one on suficient cause being shown, where the applicant may sufier substantial loss; the application is made without unreasonable delay and on provision of such security as the Court may impose”. 5. The historical background of the dispute at hand is well captured in rulings already delivered by this court and I need not rehash the same save to state that parties to the dispute entered into a consent on 27.5.2022 in which the applicants were to vacate the suit premises by 31.5.2025. The applicants did not comply with the consent judgment leading to the orders of 18.3.2026 in which the applicants were found to be in contempt of court orders. It follows firstly that the orders sought herein are not in tandem with the contempt proceedings which are underway. Secondly, this court already dealt with the question of stay of execution on 18.3.2026 where the court declined to grant any stay orders. Thirdly, I find that the consent order of 27.5.2022 was never challenged in an appeal or review by the plaintifis. The orders given on 18.3.2026 were only meant to efiectuate the consent order and nothing more. 6. Fourthly, I find that on 19.5.2026, Counsel for the plaintifis addressed the court as follows: “ From the communication I have received from our clients, they are not on the property and are in Nairobi as he is even admitted at hospital and they are not there. Sun Roses are the ones on the land. The only part of none compliance with our clients is because of the orders from Meru as Sun Roses have blocked them from entering there. They have also put a gate and CCTV and so they should direct their issue to Sun Roses and not us” Thus in their own admissions, the applicants are not on the land. 7. Courts of law exist to administer justice and in so doing they must of necessity balance between competing rights and interests of difierent parties but within the confines of law, to ensure the ends of justice are met, See-Dickson Muricho Muriuki v Timothy Kagondu Muruiki & 6 others [2013] eKLR. In the case at hand, I find that a party who is blatantly defying his own consent order as well as orders of this court does not deserve the exercise of discretion by this court in their favour. In the circumstances, I find that the application dated 24.3. 2026 is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4198/eng@2026-06-17 2

page 2 of 3

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: Nancy Mwangi – C/A M/s Makamba for plaintifi Belinda for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants – absent Ongiti for 4th defendant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4198/eng@2026-06-17 3

page 3 of 3