Onyuna v Odongo & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3979 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 requirement for grant of orders of stay of execution
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6
Yes – substantial loss was shown, the application was made expeditiously, and sufficient cause existed to preserve the substratum of the appeal; no security was ordered as the decree was not monetary.
The court noted the trial court found the applicant's title invalid and ordered cancellation and reversion, so his fear of loss upon cancellation was valid. The application was filed within about 18 days of judgment, hence expeditious. As the decree was not monetary, security orders were unnecessary. Guided by Butt and Vishram Ravji Halai, the court exercised its discretion to preserve the status quo.
Legal principles established
#- The fact that execution has been or is likely to be put in motion does not by itself amount to substantial loss; the applicant must show execution would irreparably affect or negate the essential core of the appeal
- An arguable appeal need only raise a single bona fide point worthy of consideration and need not necessarily succeed
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree delivered on 25th October, 2024 in Siaya Chief Magistrate's Court In ELC No. E057 of 2023 pending hearing and determination of the Appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Siaya Chief Magistrate's Court
- ELC No. E057 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Orders for security for due performance of the decree
The decree is not a monetary decree, so no security order was issued
Costs
Costs of the application will abide the outcome of the appeal
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 this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a Stay of Execution of the Judgment and Decree delivered on 25th October, 2024 in Siaya Chief Magistrate’s Court In ELC No. E057 of 2023 pending hearing and determination of this Appeal.
That Costs of the application will abide the outcome of the appeal.
Substantial loss is what has to be prevented by preserving the status quo because such loss would render the appeal nugatory.
It is my finding that the application has been filed expeditiously.
Issues in the judgment
#The Co-operative Bank of Kenya quotation on nugatory appeal appears appended after the delivery/clause of the ruling, outside the main body, and is not integrated into the analysis or disposition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyuna v Odongo & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3979 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Appeal (Siaya) – application dated 12/11/24. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3979/eng@2025-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.