Jospeter & another (Suing as the Administrators/Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Edward Murithi Mutegi) v Mutegi & another (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8328 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court at Chuka halted the removal of property cautions for seven months, letting a family estate protect its land while appealing—provided it deposits Kshs 100,000 in court within 45 days.
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 meets the criteria upon which the court exercises jurisdiction to grant an order of stay of execution pending the hearing and disposal of an appeal before it
Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
Removal of the subsisting cautions would expose the suit lands to possible disposal during the pendency of the appeal, and if the appeal succeeded the appellants would suffer substantial loss
The court noted the cautions subsisted during the trial and that removal would expose the suit lands to possible disposal. The applicant's complaint that the trial court decided the suit on the original plaint rather than the amended plaint, leaving its issues undetermined, strengthened the prospect of a meritorious appeal. Disposal of the lands would render a successful appeal nugatory, satisfying the substantial-loss threshold.
Unreasonable delay
The 68-day delay in lodging the application was long but not inordinate and inexcusable
The judgment was rendered on 24/7/2025 and the application lodged 68 days later. The court acknowledged this was a long period, particularly given the anxiety associated with land litigation, but concluded it was not inordinate and inexcusable, so the delay limb of Order 42 rule 6(2) was satisfied.
Security for due performance of the decree
Kshs 100,000/= was fixed as reasonable security, given the respondents' occupation of the suit land and the enforceable aspects of the decree
The court observed that the respondents were in occupation of the suit land and that the only enforceable aspects of the decree were removal of the cautions and recovery of costs. It considered it could properly craft a security order addressing those aspects and fixed Kshs 100,000/= as reasonable security, tied to a 45-day compliance deadline with vacation of the stay on default.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution pending appeal requires satisfaction of Order 42 rule 6(2): substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree
- Where the appeal relates to land and execution would expose the land to disposal, substantial loss is established
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant shall, within 45 days, deposit in court Kshs 100,000/= as security for the due performance of the decree of the lower court
- 2.Subject to compliance with the security condition, execution of the order decreeing removal of the cautions registered against Karingani/Ndagani/10262 and Karingani/Ndagani/10263 shall be stayed for a period of seven (7) months
- 3.In the event the sum of Kshs 100,000/= is not deposited in court within 45 days, the order staying execution shall stand vacated
- 4.Costs of the application shall be in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates Court, Chuka
- CMC E & L Case No E031 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
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.
The court is alive to the fact that removal of the cautions will expose the suit lands to possible disposal during the pendency of the appeal.
Though not inordinate and inexcusable, this is certainly a long period, moreso, when the court takes into account the anxiety that is associated with litigation relating to land.
The appellant shall, within 45 days, deposit in court Kshs 100,000/= as security for the due performance of the decree of the lower court.
Subject to compliance with the above condition, execution of the order decreeing removal of the cautions registered against Karingani/ Ndagani/10262 and Karingani/Ndagani/10263 shall be stayed for a period of seven (7) months from today.
Costs of this application shall be in the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The notice of motion is described as dated 30/7/2025 in the opening paragraph but the application is later stated to be dated 22/9/2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jospeter & another (Suing as the Administrators/Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Edward Murithi Mutegi) v Mutegi & another (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8328 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chuka CMC E&L Appeal (stay application dated 30/7/2025), arising from Chuka CMC E & L Case No E031 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8328/eng@2025-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.