Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment as extracted

Kinluck Holdings Limited v Mint Holdings Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E273 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7381 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 October 2025
2,138 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a property owner to enforce a 2019 Court of Appeal judgment despite a pending Supreme Court application, ordering the land retransferred.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, Kinluck Holdings Limited, moved the Environment and Land Court by Notice of Motion dated 24 January 2025 seeking orders that the Deputy Registrar execute transfer documents on behalf of the 1st Defendant to retransfer LR No. 12494/10 to the Plaintiff, that the 1st Defendant deliver the mother title within 30 days, and that the Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi, facilitate manual retransfer. The application stemmed from the Court of Appeal's judgment of 5 April 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2011, which ordered transfer of the suit property to the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant opposed, citing its pending application SCAPPL/E019/2024 before the Supreme Court seeking stay, arguing proceedings should await that outcome under the sub judice rule, and contending the Land Registrar was not a party to the suit. The court framed a single issue: whether it should allow execution of the Court of Appeal judgment. Relying on Section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Sections 29 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held it has power to execute Court of Appeal decrees as its own. Since the Court of Appeal had declined certification for leave to appeal and never granted stay, and no petition had been filed in the Supreme Court as required by Section 23A of the Supreme Court Act, there was no bar to execution. The application was allowed in its entirety, with costs in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether this Court should grant orders allowing the Plaintiff to execute the Court of Appeal's judgement issued in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2011 on 5th April 2019

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the High Court/ELC may execute a Court of Appeal judgment notwithstanding a pending application before the Supreme Court

Holding

The Court held it has power to execute decrees of the Court of Appeal as its own; since the Court of Appeal declined certification and never granted stay, and no petition is pending in the Supreme Court, there is no bar to execution.

Reasoning

The court relied on Section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Sections 29 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Act, which empower it to execute Court of Appeal decrees as if they were its own judgments. It noted the Court of Appeal had declined certification for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and had not granted a stay. Section 23A of the Supreme Court Act requires a filed petition before a stay application can be made, and none had been filed. The pendency of SCAPPL/E019/2024 therefore did not bar execution.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A judgment of the Court of Appeal may be executed and enforced as if it were a judgment of the High Court.
  • Where no petition of appeal has been instituted and no certification granted, an application for stay under Section 23A of the Supreme Court Act is not available and does not bar execution of the Court of Appeal's judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An Order directing/authorizing the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable Court to execute the necessary transfer documents on behalf of the 1st Respondent to facilitate the retransfer of the property known as LR No.12494/10 to the Applicant
  2. 2.An Order directing the 1st Respondent to deliver to the Applicant the mother title in respect of LR No.12494/10 within thirty (30) days from the date hereof
  3. 3.An Order directed at the Chief Land Registrar Nairobi to facilitate the manual retransfer of the said LR No. 12494/10 from the 1st Respondent (MINT HOLDINGS LTD) to the Applicant (KINLUCK HOLDINGS LIMITED)
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

The bench

#

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

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Sections 29 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Act

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.

Under Section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Sections 29 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Act, this Court has power to execute decrees or orders of the Court of Appeal as if they were its own judgments.
p. 3Jurisdiction to execute Court of Appeal decrees
I find that there is no Order from the Court of Appeal barring the Plaintifi from seeking for execution of the Judgment including resultant Decree emanating therefrom.
p. 4No bar to execution
An Order be and is hereby issued directing/ authorizing the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable Court to execute the necessary transfer documents on behalf of the 1st Respondent to facilitate the retransfer of the property known as LR No.12494/10 to the Applicant.
p. 5Final orders - execution of transfer documents

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment refers to the applicant inconsistently as 'Plaintiff' in the application and 'Applicant' in the orders; the first respondent is called both '1st Defendant' and '1st Respondent'.

minor

The case number of the suit before this Court is not stated in the extracted judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kinluck Holdings Limited v Mint Holdings Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E273 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7381 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7381/eng@2025-10-30

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