Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC E082 of 2023 (Consolidated with ELC 104 of 2020, E380 of 2022 and E012 of 2023)· [2025] KEELC 394 (KLR)

Abdi v Pamoja Construction Limited & 2 others; Kenya United Sports Ltd (Third party) (Environment & Land Case E082 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 394 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 January 2025
2,966 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court paused the lawsuits for only eight months, showing that even strong appeals won't stop other people's cases forever.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Third Party, Kenya United Sports Ltd, applied by notice of motion dated 6th November 2024 for a stay of proceedings in the consolidated suits (ELC E082 of 2023, ELC 104 of 2020, E380 of 2022 and E012 of 2023) pending the hearing and determination of its appeal, Nairobi COA Civil Appeal No. E301 of 2023, against the judgment of 4th August 2022 in ELC 351 of 2008, which nullified its title to L.R. No. 13873, Karen. The applicant argued the appeal was arguable, that continuing the suits would render the appeal nugatory, and that no prejudice would befall the respondents. The plaintiffs/respondents opposed, arguing the applicant had not sought stay in the Court of Appeal, that their claims were for refund of purchase monies rather than transfer of land, and that a stay would cause further delay and prejudice, including for plaintiffs servicing bank loans. The 1st Defendant supported the application, citing the risk of contradictory outcomes and reliance on section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General decision on judicial notice of related proceedings. The court, applying Order 42 rule 6 and the principles in William Odhiambo Ramogi, found that although the plaintiffs seek only refunds, their claims are linked to the cancelled title and any adverse orders against the 1st Defendant would be forwarded to the Third Party, so the appeal outcome would likely affect the claims. A stay of proceedings was granted for a limited period of eight months, with the matters to be fixed for hearing thereafter. The application was allowed with costs in the cause. Judgment delivered at Nairobi on 30th January 2025 by A. Omollo J.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of proceedings pending appeal should be granted under Order 42 rule 6

Holding

Stay was granted for a limited period of eight months because the consolidated suits' claims for refund are linked to the appealed judgment nullifying the Third Party's title

Reasoning

The court found that although the plaintiffs seek refunds from the 1st Defendant rather than transfer of the disputed land, their refund claims arise from the judgment in ELC 351 of 2008 cancelling the title, and any adverse orders against the 1st Defendant would be passed on to the Third Party. The pending appeal may therefore affect the claims. Nonetheless, stay of proceedings interferes with access to justice, so it was limited to eight months.

p. 6
02

Whether section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act (sub judice) applied to the application

Holding

No - the application was brought under Order 42 rule 6, not section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reasoning

The court held parties are bound by their pleadings; none of the grounds in support of the application invoked section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, so the 1st Defendant's submissions relying on that section were out of context, even though a party may move the court to stay proceedings under that section.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action that seriously interferes with a litigant's right to conduct litigation and the test is high and stringent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of proceedings in the consolidated suits granted for a limited period of eight (8) months, with the matters to be fixed for hearing thereafter
  2. 2.The application dated 6th November 2024 is allowed with costs in the cause
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Abdi v Pamoja Construction Limited & 2 others; Kenya United Sports Ltd (Third party) (Environment & Land Case E082 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC E082 of 2023 (Consolidated with ELC 104 of 2020, E380 of 2022 and E012 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/394/eng@2025-01-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.