Kiratu & 2 others (Administrators of the Estate of the Late Leah Gacheru) v Muturi & others (In Their Own Individual Capacity and on Behalf of Mia Moja Self Help Group) (Civil Application E136 of 2025) [2026] KECA 728 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to freeze a disputed Nakuru land sale because the intending appellants failed to show their appeal had any real chance of succeeding.
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 demonstrated an arguable appeal
- 2.Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory absent an injunction pending appeal
- 3.Whether an injunction should issue restraining the respondents from dealing with LR Nakuru Municipality Block 17/86 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal was arguable under the Rule 5(2)(b) test
The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to establish an arguable appeal; the nugatory limb was not reached.
The court considered the six grounds of appeal, including limitation, breach of contract, specific performance and standard of proof, and concluded that none was arguable. Consistent with settled practice, the court expressed no definitive view on the merits, leaving them to the appeal bench, and declined the injunction as the first limb of the twin test had failed.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must sequentially satisfy the twin requirements that the appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory if the order sought is not granted; failure on the first limb disposes of the application.
- It suffices for an applicant to show that at least one ground of appeal is arguable at the interlocutory stage.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 9th December 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Nakuru
- Nakuru ELCLA E057 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 (original and discretionary jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with LR Nakuru Municipality Block 17/86 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
The applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal, satisfying the first limb of the Rule 5(2)(b) test; the second limb was therefore unnecessary to consider
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents
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.
That the applicant must sequentially surmount the twin barrier of demonstrating that the appeal is arguable and secondly that the appeal will otherwise be rendered nugatory unless the order sought is granted.
The applicants have failed to satisfy the first limb that they have an arguable appeal and therefore it is not necessary for us to consider the second limb, whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent stay.
In the final analysis, we find that the application dated 9th December 2025 falls far short of the legal threshold for the exercise of our discretion under Rule 5[2] [b] in favor of the applicants. It lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Date inconsistency: the application is described as heard on 9th March 2027, yet submissions are dated 19th February 2026 and the judgment is dated 10th April 2026.
The parties' submissions are stated to be dated 19th February 2026 although the supporting affidavit is sworn on 9th December 2025 and the replying affidavit on 12th January 2026; this is internally consistent but the hearing date above conflicts.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiratu & 2 others (Administrators of the Estate of the Late Leah Gacheru) v Muturi & others (In Their Own Individual Capacity and on Behalf of Mia Moja Self Help Group) (Civil Application E136 of 2025) [2026] KECA 728 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (intended appeal from Nakuru ELCLA E057 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/728/eng@2026-04-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.