Cheti v Ang’ang’a (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4389 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Vihiga halted an eviction pending appeal, but only after the appellant deposits Kshs 100,000 in court within 45 days.
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 satisfied the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2) for stay of execution pending appeal
- 2.Whether the applicant made the application without unreasonable delay
- 3.Whether substantial loss would result if stay is not granted
- 4.Whether the applicant has offered adequate security
Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
Eviction pursuant to execution would cause the appellant substantial loss
The judgment under appeal decreed eviction of the appellant from the suit land and the 60-day period allowed by the trial court had elapsed. Without a stay, execution would proceed and the appellant would be evicted, which would amount to substantial loss and render the appeal nugatory.
Security for the decree
Stay granted conditionally on deposit of Kshs 100,000 within 45 days
Order 42 Rule 6(2) requires security for due performance of the decree. The court conditioned the stay on a deposit of Kenya Shillings one hundred thousand within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses, balancing the appellant's appeal rights with the respondent's entitlement to the fruits of judgment.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution may be granted where execution would render a proposed appeal nugatory
- The conditions for stay are substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance
Court orders
#- 1.An order of stay of execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 27th February 2025 in Vihiga SPM ELC Case No E010 of 2022, conditional on the applicant depositing Kshs 100,000 as security within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Vihiga Principal Magistrate's Court (SPM ELC)
- Vihiga SPM ELC Case No E010 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1, 2 & 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules; sections 1A & 3A Civil Procedure Act Cap 21; Article 159 Constitution of Kenya 2010; Order 42 Rule 6(2) Civil Procedure 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.
I find that the application is merited and hereby allow it in the following terms;
An order of stay of execution of the judgement and decree delivered on 27th February 2025 in Vihiga SPM ELC Case No E010 of 2022 is hereby granted on condition that the applicant deposits in court the sum of Kenya shillings one hundred thousand only (Kshs 100,000/=) being security within 45 days hereof failing which the order of stay of execution herein granted shall lapse.
Costs of the application to the Respondent
if it is shown that execution would render a proposed appeal nugatory then a stay can properly be granted.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction on the date of the trial court's judgment: paragraph 1 states it was delivered on 27th February 2023, but the operative order refers to 27th February 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheti v Ang’ang’a (Environment and Land Appeal E011 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4389 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (arising from appeal against Vihiga SPM ELC Case No E010 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4389/eng@2025-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.