Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedKakamega CMC ELC Appeal (arising from Kakamega CMC ELC No. 20 of 2020)

Ongamoo v Obayo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6504 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2025
824 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega refused to stop execution of a judgment because the applicant had no appeal and showed no substantial loss.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega by Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2025 seeking certification as urgent, leave to file an appeal out of time against the ruling of Hon. J.R. Ndururi SPM delivered on 22nd August 2024 in Kakamega CMC ELC No. 20 of 2020, and an order of stay of execution of the orders and decree arising from that ruling. The applicant's suit had been partially determined through mediation and he was aggrieved by the ruling on an application dated 3rd June 2024. The respondent, though served, filed no response; only the applicant's submissions were considered. The court found the prayer for extension of time spent, as it had been sought only pending hearing of the application, leaving only the stay prayer for determination. The court held that execution is a lawful process that follows grant of an order, judgment or decree, and that stay cannot be granted merely because a party is aggrieved: there must be an appeal, an intended appeal, or a justifiable lawful excuse. Relying on James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto [2012] eKLR, the court noted that the mere institution or likelihood of execution does not constitute substantial loss, which is the cornerstone of a stay application. Since the applicant had neither appealed nor sought leave to appeal and had not demonstrated substantial loss, the court found no merit in the application, dismissed it with no order as to costs, and ordered accordingly.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the court should grant leave to file appeal out of time against the ruling delivered on 22nd August 2024 in Kakamega CMC ELC No. 20 of 2020
  2. 2.Whether an order of stay of execution should issue to stay the orders, decree and consequential orders arising from the ruling of 22nd August 2024

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution can issue where no appeal is pending or intended

Holding

Stay cannot issue merely because a party is aggrieved; there must be an appeal, intended appeal, or justifiable lawful excuse, and substantial loss must be shown

Reasoning

The court held that the applicant sought to stay lawful orders of the lower court without challenging them in any competent forum or showing intention to do so. Halting execution without lawful justification would deny the successful party access to justice under Article 48 and render the order a mere paper order. Being aggrieved alone is insufficient.

p. 2
02

Whether extension of time to file appeal out of time should be granted

Holding

The prayer was spent, as it was sought only pending hearing of the application, and the application was dismissed as meritless

Reasoning

The court observed that the prayer for extension of time was interim in nature, sought pending hearing and determination of the application itself. Having found no basis for stay, the court dismissed the entire application, leaving the applicant without leave to appeal out of time.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Execution is a lawful process and should not be halted without an appeal or intended appeal or a justifiable lawful excuse
  • Mere fact that execution has been put in motion does not amount to substantial loss; the applicant must establish other factors showing irreparable harm

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Kakamega
Kakamega CMC ELC No. 20 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction to extend time and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Relief refused

#

Certification of the application as urgent and allocation of an early inter-partes hearing date

Spent/interlocutory; the application was ultimately dismissed

Leave to file appeal out of time against the ruling of 22nd August 2024

The prayer became spent as it was sought pending hearing of the application, and the court found no merit in the application

p. 2

Stay of execution of the orders, decree and consequential orders arising from the ruling of 22nd August 2024

The applicant sought stay of valid court orders without an appeal or intended appeal, and did not establish substantial loss

p. 2

Costs

Dismissed with no order as to costs

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.

In the premises, I find no merit in the application dated 18th February 2025, which I hereby dismiss with no order as to costs.
p. 2Disposition - dismissal of the application
Unless there is an appeal or intended appeal, or a justifiable lawful excuse, in my view there would be no basis for grant of stay
p. 2Requirements for stay of execution
Execution is a legal process which should not be unjustifiably or injudiciously halted.
p. 2Execution as a lawful process
the issue of substantial loss is the cornerstone of both jurisdictions. Substantial loss is what has to be prevented by preserving the status quo
p. 2Substantial loss as the cornerstone of stay applications

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ongamoo v Obayo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6504 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kakamega CMC ELC Appeal (arising from Kakamega CMC ELC No. 20 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6504/eng@2025-09-24

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