Noru v Gitau & 4 others (Civil Application E109 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1087 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal stopped eviction from bought land until the buyer's appeal is heard, because eviction could not be undone if the appeal succeeded.
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 application has met the threshold for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal, namely whether the intended appeal is arguable and whether it would be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted
- 2.Whether the balance of hardship favours the grant of a stay
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal raised at least one arguable ground, namely the trial judge's finding of fraud and the standard of proof applied, warranting the Court's attention.
The applicant challenged the trial judge's finding of fraud and the standard of proof applied. The Court, having perused the submissions and considered counsel's arguments, was satisfied that a single bona fide arguable ground suffices under the settled principles and that the ground on the standard of proof in fraud claims met that threshold without making definitive findings that would embarrass the full appeal.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay
The potential eviction of the applicant and his family, who have established residence on the suit land, could be irreversible and would render a successful appeal nugatory.
The applicant had constructed permanent residences and settled his elderly mother on the suit land. The Court held that the consequences of eviction may be irreversible, satisfying the nugatory principle that what is sought to be stayed must be reversible or compensable in damages. The balance of hardship also favoured preservation of the status quo, noting the trial court's earlier status quo order.
Alleged improvement of the case on appeal and timeliness under rule 82
These were matters for the hearing of the appeal or a formal application to strike out, and did not negate arguability at this interlocutory stage.
The 1st respondent argued the applicant was improving his case on appeal and that the appeal may have been filed out of time under rule 82. The Court held these concerns were preliminary, could be fully canvassed at the hearing of the appeal, and could be addressed through a formal striking-out application if made.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b) is original, independent and discretionary, to be exercised judiciously upon demonstration of an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent a stay.
- A single bona fide arguable ground suffices to establish arguability under rule 5(2)(b).
- Where impecuniosity of a respondent is alleged as rendering an appeal nugatory, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent to rebut the claim.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Environment and Land Court at Murang'a dated 3rd October 2024 pending the lodging, hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal 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.
Considering all the circumstances of this case, we are persuaded that the applicant has met the threshold for the grant of a stay of execution. It is just and equitable to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the intended appeal to prevent potential irreparable harm and to ensure that the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory.
It is trite that the jurisdiction of this Court under rule 5(2)(b) is original, independent, and discretionary.
On whether the appeal is arguable, it is suficient if a single bonafide arguable ground of appeal is raised.
Whether or not an appeal will be rendered nugatory depends on whether or not what is sought to be stayed if allowed to happen is reversible; or if it is not reversible whether damages will reasonably compensate the party aggrieved.
Costs of this application shall be in the cause of the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Noru v Gitau & 4 others (Civil Application E109 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1087 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application No. E012 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1087/eng@2025-06-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.