Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated (application dated 29th September 2025)

Mumia & 2 others v Koech & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 70 of 2018 & 352 of 2022 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 7776 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
5 November 2025
ANA. Nyukuri
1,391 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Once a Kenyan court has decided a case on its merits, it cannot grant injunctions pending an appeal - only the Court of Appeal can step in.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, who purchased suit parcel Kakamega/Sango/131 about 40 years ago, moved the court by notice of motion dated 29th September 2025 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from selling, alienating or transferring the property pending hearing of his extension-of-time application, Civil Application No. E055 of 2025, at the Court of Appeal. He alleged that on 26th September 2025 the respondents' agents invaded his home, destroyed crops and demolished his house, and that they intended to sell the property. The 2nd respondent opposed, asserting that the applicant had already been evicted pursuant to a decree, that the respondent was now in possession, and that the application was res judicata given a prior dismissed stay application. The court framed two issues: res judicata and entitlement to the injunction. On the first, it held the application was not res judicata because the earlier application sought stay of execution, not an injunction, and the two reliefs differ. On the second, the court held that although it has power to grant injunctions under Order 40 rule 1 and Order 42 rule 6(7) before determination of a suit, having already conclusively determined the suit on merit and ordered the applicant's eviction, it had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction pending the Court of Appeal application; whether the intended appeal raises triable issues is a matter for that court. The application was struck out with costs to the respondents.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether this application is res judicata in view of the decision made in regard to the application dated 12/08/2024
  2. 2.Whether the applicant deserves orders of temporary injunction pending hearing and determination of Civil Application No. 55 of 2025 at the Court of Appeal

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata

Holding

Application not res judicata because the earlier application sought only stay of execution, not an injunction

Reasoning

Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars trying issues already determined on merit. The court compared the prayers: the application dated 12/08/2024 sought only stay pending appeal, whereas the instant application sought a temporary injunction. Since the two reliefs differ and the former issues were not directly and substantially in issue, the doctrine did not apply.

p. 2
02

Jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction pending Court of Appeal application

Holding

Court lacked jurisdiction; having determined the suit on merit and ordered eviction, it cannot revisit prima facie case, which is for the Court of Appeal

Reasoning

The court has power under Order 40 rule 1 and Order 42 rule 6(7) to grant injunctions in original or appellate jurisdiction before determination. But once the suit is decided on merit and rights pronounced, the trial court becomes functus as to the substantive rights; whether the intended appeal raises triable issues is for the Court of Appeal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A court that has conclusively determined a suit on merit has no power to grant an injunction pending determination of an application before the Court of Appeal
  • Injunction and stay of execution are distinct reliefs, so a prior stay application does not render a later injunction application res judicata

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dated 29th September 2025 struck out
  2. 2.Costs to the respondents

The bench

#

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

AN
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 rule 1 and Order 42 Rule 6(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Relief refused

#

Temporary injunction restraining respondents from selling, alienating or transferring land parcel No. Kakamega/Sango/131 pending hearing of Civil Application No. E055 of 2025 at the Court of Appeal

The court held it had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction after conclusively determining the suit and ordering the applicant's eviction; only the Court of Appeal can determine if the intended appeal raises triable issues

p. 4

Costs

Application struck out with costs to the respondents

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 and hold that this court has no jurisdiction to grant injunction sought. Therefore, I hereby strike out the application dated 29th September 2025 with costs to the respondents.
p. 4Final orders - striking out and lack of jurisdiction
After deciding a suit on merit whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, thereafter, this court has no power to grant an injunction pending determination of any other matter before the Court of Appeal.
p. 3Limits of trial court's power to grant injunction
The applicant must demonstrate prima facie case, irreparable loss and show that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting an injunction.
p. 3Giella principles for temporary injunction

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Dates inconsistent: submissions dated 10th February 2025 and 21st March 2025 predate the application dated 29th September 2025

minor

Respondent's affidavit refers to application dated 12/08/2025 in one place and 12/08/2024 in another

minor

Case number of the suit not stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mumia & 2 others v Koech & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 70 of 2018 & 352 of 2022 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 7776 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated (application dated 29th September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7776/eng@2025-11-05

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