Achayo v Oyugi & 3 others (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E033 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1379 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Siaya land court paused eviction, letting a family stay on land they've occupied for 20 years while their appeal is heard.
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 for stay of execution pending appeal is merited
- 2.Who bears the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
The applicants demonstrated substantial loss: eviction, demolition of permanent structures and disturbance of the family home would render the appeal nugatory and cause irreparable, unquantifiable harm.
The applicants had occupied the suit property North Gem/Malanga/700 for over 20 years, built permanent residential structures since 2004 and buried the 2nd applicant's husband there. The respondent did not deny the structures. The court held that vacating and possible demolition would render the appeal nugatory and cause psychological trauma not quantifiable or compensable by the respondent.
Timeliness of the application
The application filed on 30th October 2025, within the 30-day stay window running from the 2nd October 2025 judgment, was made without undue delay.
The court compared the delivery date of the judgment with the filing date and noted the application was lodged within a month, while the 30-day stay reprieve it had earlier granted was still running. It therefore found the requirement of no unreasonable delay satisfied.
Security for due performance of the decree
The court fixed security at Kshs. 100,000/-, payable in cash or by bank guarantee within 45 days.
Relying on the rationale that security under Order 42 guarantees due performance of any decree ultimately binding on the applicant, and on the balancing exercise from Keary Development v Tarmac Construction as applied in Ocean View Beach Hotel Ltd, the court weighed the injustice to both sides and fixed a deposit of Kshs. 100,000/-.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2) must demonstrate substantial loss, file the application without unreasonable delay, and furnish security for due performance of the decree.
- Execution being put in motion by itself does not amount to substantial loss; the applicant must show the execution will render the appeal nugatory.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 2nd October 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal to the Court of Appeal
- 2.Security deposit of Kshs. 100,000/- by way of cash deposit or alternatively a bank guarantee of an equivalent amount, to be deposited within 45 days of the ruling
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application in favour of the applicants
The court exercised its discretion to direct that each party bear their own costs
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs.
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 conclusion I find and hold that the Applicant has fulfilled the requirements for grant of stay of execution pending appeal as stipulated under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Accordingly, I hereby allow the application dated 30th October 2025.
The Security shall be deposited within 45 days of this ruling either in cash with the court and or by way of bank guarantee within 45 days.
Each party shall bear their own costs.
Substantial loss is what has to be prevented by preserving the status quo because such loss would render the appeal nugatory.
Issues in the judgment
#The heading, case number and party designations are omitted from the ruling; the parties' roles appear inconsistently, with the applicants described as '1st and 2nd Respondents/Applicants' in a first-instance stay application.
The judgment uses 'Appellant' to describe both the party before the court and the party who won on 2nd October 2025, and elsewhere 'the appellants vacate the land' when referring to the applicants, creating ambiguity about who is appellish.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Achayo v Oyugi & 3 others (Environment and Land Civil Appeal E033 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1379 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1379/eng@2026-03-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.