Inuka Afrika Properties Limited v Karisa & 3 others (Civil Application E043 of 2025) [2026] KECA 308 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal halted execution of a Malindi land judgment, protecting a buyer's claim to Kilifi/Roka/308 until its appeal is fully heard.
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 applicant has met the threshold for grant of the orders sought under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the Rule 5(2)(b) twin principles of an arguable appeal and the appeal being rendered nugatory
The applicant satisfied both limbs. The draft grounds on bona fide purchaser status, equity protection and validity of the sale agreement were arguable; execution of the decree would evict the applicant and render the appeal academic, warranting preservation of the status quo.
The court appraised the draft Memorandum of Appeal and found grounds challenging the finding that the applicant was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the applicability of equity, and the validity of the sale agreement and land control board consent, sufficient to warrant a hearing before a full bench. On the nugatory limb, execution would fundamentally change ownership of the suit property and evict the applicant, reducing the appeal to a mere academic exercise; preserving the status quo was prudent pending the full hearing.
Whether the Giella vs. Cassman Brown injunction principles apply to applications under Rule 5(2)(b)
They do not. Rule 5(2)(b) principles exclusively govern such applications before the Court of Appeal.
Although the applicant had invoked the Giella principles for its injunction prayer, the court clarified that those first-instance principles have no place in a Rule 5(2)(b) application. All an applicant must demonstrate are the twin requirements: an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent the orders sought.
Legal principles established
#- In applications under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, an applicant must first demonstrate an arguable appeal (not one that must necessarily succeed, but one that is not frivolous; a single bona fide ground suffices), and second, that the appeal would be rendered nugatory unless stay is granted.
- The principles in Giella vs. Cassman Brown are not applicable in Rule 5(2)(b) applications before the Court of Appeal; the applicant need only satisfy the Rule 5(2)(b) principles.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree of Makori, J. dated and delivered on 2nd April 2025 in Malindi ELCC No. E038 of 2023 pending determination of the appeal
- 2.Restraint against the respondents, their employees, servants, associates, agents and/or persons working on their behalf, from fencing, subdividing, selling, offering for sale, leasing or offering to lease, transferring or purporting to transfer, developing, or otherwise having any adverse dealings with the parcel of land known as Kilifi/Roka/308 pending determination of the applicant's appeal
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Malindi
- Malindi ELC Case No. E038 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 5(2)(b) and 49(1) 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.
firstly, an applicant has to satisfy that he/she has an arguable appeal. However, this is not to say that it must be an appeal that will necessarily succeed; it sufices that it is an appeal that is not frivolous. Even a single bona fide ground will sufice.
the principles under Giella Cassman Brown case, are not applicable before this Court. All that an applicant is required to satisfy are the principles underpinned under Rule 5(2)(b)
There be stay of the execution of the Judgement and Decree (Makori, J.) dated and delivered on 2nd April 2025 in Malindi ELCC NO. E038 of 2023 pending determination of the appeal.
The respondents be and are hereby restrained whether by themselves, their employees, their servants, associates, agents and/or persons working on their behalf from fencing, subdividing, selling, ofiering for sale, leasing or ofiering to lease, transferring or purporting to transfer, developing, or otherwise having any adverse dealings with the parcel of land known as Kilifi/Roka/308 pending the determination of the applicant's appeal.
Cost of the application shall be in the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Inuka Afrika Properties Limited v Karisa & 3 others (Civil Application E043 of 2025) [2026] KECA 308 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E093 of 2025 (Civil Appeal No. E093 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/308/eng@2026-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.