Ogoma v Ogoma (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7960 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to pause an eviction order because the appellant could not show his appeal raised genuine arguable issues worth hearing.
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 satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal
The application failed as no arguable appeal was demonstrated
The court adopted the twin conditions from Munya v Kithinji and Chris Munga Bichage: arguable appeal and nugatory-ness. The court found the record did not show the response was filed before the determination, and even if it was, the issue of eviction had already been litigated and concluded between the parties. Having failed the first condition, the remaining conditions need not be analysed.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate both that the appeal is arguable and that it would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted
- An arguable appeal does not necessarily mean an appeal that will succeed
Court orders
#- 1.Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.Appellant directed to file both the Record of Appeal and the order appealed from within fourteen (14) days and serve
- 3.Appeal to be placed before the court on 10th December 2025 for consideration on whether to be admitted or not and acted on in terms of Order 42 Rules 2 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Homa Bay subordinate court (Magistrates' Court)
- Homa-Bay ELC Case No. 35 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 46 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ruling and orders of the subordinate court issued on 3rd April 2025 in Homa-Bay ELC Case No. 35 of 2019, pending hearing of the application and of the appeal
The application does not raise an arguable appeal; since the first condition failed, the court did not consider the remaining conditions
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent
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.
This application therefore fails. It is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
it is my considered view that the Application does not raise an arguable appeal
the appellant, or intending appellant, must satisfy the Court that: (i) the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and not frivolous; and that (ii) unless the order of stay sought is granted, the appeal or intended appeal, were it to eventually succeed, would be rendered nugatory.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent dates for the subordinate court's ruling - the prayers cite 3rd April 2019 while the grounds cite 3rd April 2025 and the submissions cite 3rd April 2024
Inconsistent dates for the judgment in the lower court - the applicant refers to judgment delivered on 24th November 2024 while the respondent refers to 24th November 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogoma v Ogoma (Environment and Land Appeal E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7960 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Homa-Bay ELC Appeal Case No. E004 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7960/eng@2025-11-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.