Mutwota (Suing on Behalf of Benjamin Jackson Mutwota Muia) & another v Mulala & 31 others (Environment and Land Case 20 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1544 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped an eviction until an appeal is heard, because buildings on the land would be destroyed and money can't undo that.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay
The delay of slightly over two months was explained by the change of advocates effected by consent and was not unreasonable.
Judgment was delivered on 26th September 2025 and the application was made on 3rd December 2025, a period of slightly over two months. The court found this attributable to the Applicants' change of advocate, effected by consent on 13th October 2025, and held the delay not unreasonable in the circumstances.
Whether the Applicants will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted
Substantial loss demonstrated because the Applicants have built business and residential premises on the suit property which would be prejudiced by execution before the appeal is determined.
The court noted the Applicants have built business premises on the suit property, some with residential houses, which have existed for a long time. Demolition before the appeal is determined would greatly prejudice the Applicants and might render the appeal nugatory or an academic exercise.
Whether non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9 and failure to annex authority vitiate the application
Non-compliance with Order 9 Rule 9 was cured by a consent filed on 13th October 2025, and failure to exhibit authority was not fatal where the deponent stated he had authority.
The Applicants demonstrated their advocate obtained consent to come on record from previous advocates, filed on 13th October 2025. The deponent had been signing all pleadings with authority from co-Applicants and stated this in the opening paragraph of the affidavit, so failure to exhibit the authority was not fatal.
Security for costs
Stay granted conditional on deposit of Kshs. 200,000/= in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days.
As part of the disposition the court imposed a security condition, requiring the Applicants to deposit Kshs. 200,000/= in a joint interest earning account in the names of the parties' advocates within 45 days as a condition for the stay of execution.
Legal principles established
#- Conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2): application without unreasonable delay, demonstration of substantial loss, and provision of security for costs
- Failure to exhibit written authority for a deponent who states on record that he has authority from co-applicants is not fatal to an application
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution granted against the judgment delivered on 26th September, 2025 together with all consequential orders pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.Applicants to deposit Kshs. 200,000/= in a joint interest earning account in the names of the parties' advocates within 45 days
- 3.Applicants to have costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutwota (Suing on Behalf of Benjamin Jackson Mutwota Muia) & another v Mulala & 31 others (Environment and Land Case 20 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1544 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1544/eng@2026-03-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.