Ramadhan v Makokha (Environment and Land Appeal E033 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8227 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Kakamega refused to pause an appeal, confirming that parties must pick one court and stick with it.
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 met the threshold for grant of stay of the proceedings in this matter
Key legal issues
#Threshold for stay of proceedings
The threshold is stringent; stay is granted only where the interests of justice require halting the proceedings, and the applicant failed to meet it
The court relied on Article 159 of the Constitution requiring expeditious justice, and on Kenya Wildlife Service v Mutembei (2019) eKLR noting that staying proceedings detrimentally interferes with the right of access to expeditious justice and fair trial under Articles 48 and 50. Citing Halsbury's Laws and Gardiner and Lansdown, the court held stay is warranted only where grave injustice would otherwise result. The applicant, having filed the appeal herself and adduced no compelling material, failed the threshold.
Party cannot litigate the same issue in two forums simultaneously
A party must elect the forum in which her claim will be determined and cannot shuttle between this court and the High Court
The appellant sought to await the outcome of summons for review and redistribution in Succession Cause No. 661 of 2013 filed by Ali Makokha Wangatia, whose tribunal award underpinned her counterclaim. The court held that the applicant and Ali Makokha cannot pursue parallel proceedings and, since the respondent chose this court for his claim, the stay application was an unjustified delay tactic.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of proceedings is a serious interruption of a party's right to litigate and should not be imposed unless the proceedings ought not, beyond reasonable doubt, be allowed to continue
- Stay of proceedings will ordinarily not be granted unless proceeding with the matter will result in grave injustice or justice cannot otherwise be attained
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 13th May 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- 2.It is so ordered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Lower court (Kakamega CMC) - decision granting respondent vacant possession
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court decision; application under the court's inherent powers to stay its own proceedings
Relief refused
#Stay of further proceedings in this appeal pending hearing and determination of Summons dated 5th November 2024 in Kakamega High Court Succession Cause No. 661 of 2013
Applicant failed to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that justice would not be served if proceedings continued; she cannot shuttle between courts and must choose a forum
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.
Therefore, I hereby dismiss the application dated 13th May 2025 with costs to the respondent.
an order for stay of proceedings ought to be granted only where the interests of justice would require that proceedings be halted.
Stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial
The applicant and by extension Ali Makokha cannot be shuttling between this court and the High Court. She has to make up her mind on where her suit will be heard.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment alternates gendered references to the appellant ('the appellant who has since established a homestead' and 'she argues' vs 'he purchased') and the heading frames the application as by 'the appellant' while the analysis refers to 'the applicant'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ramadhan v Makokha (Environment and Land Appeal E033 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8227 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). not stated in judgment (appeal filed 6/11/2023; notice of motion dated 13th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8227/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.