Sammy v Kibuia (Environment and Land Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 375 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Chuka refused to pause enforcement of a land judgment because the applicant waited three years and offered no evidence of loss.
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 for granting an order of stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2)
No - the applicant failed on substantial loss, delay, security and arguable appeal, so the application was dismissed with costs.
The court assessed each limb of Order 42 rule 6(2). No evidence demonstrated likely substantial loss; the delay of about three years since the judgment was unexplained; no evidence-backed security offer was made; and the applicant failed to avail the trial record, including the pleadings, evidence and the review application, so the court could not tell whether his grounds - chiefly an alleged concession of 1½ acres by the respondent - were arguable. Costs followed the event.
Legal principles established
#- No stay of execution shall issue unless substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security are demonstrated under Order 42 rule 6(2).
- A party seeking an order on security must support the offer with evidence and allow for proposal and counter-proposal.
- An applicant asserting that the trial court ignored a concession must place the trial record before the appellate court to show arguable grounds.
Court orders
#- 1.Application for stay of execution dismissed
- 2.Applicant to bear costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Marimanti Principal Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land)
- Marimanti PMC E&L Case No E005 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate/stay jurisdiction under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Temporary status quo and permanent stay of proceedings and execution of the judgment dated 30th November, 2022 pending the appeal
Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, made the application after inordinate and unexplained delay of about 3 years, gave no evidence-backed security proposal, and did not establish arguable grounds of appeal
Costs
Costs follow the event; the applicant shall bear costs of the application.
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 finds that the applicant has failed to satisfy the criteria for granting an order of stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the court for an order of stay of execution.
Consequently, the applicant shall bear costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The notice of motion seeks both a 'temporary status quo' and a 'permanent order of stay' pending hearing of the appeal, which is internally contradictory phrasing in the prayer itself.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sammy v Kibuia (Environment and Land Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 375 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Appeal from Marimanti PMC E&L Case No E005 of 2020 (ruling dated 18/9/2025); notice of motion dated 20/11/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/375/eng@2026-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.