Cheruiyot v Maiyo & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1624 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kapsabet halted a land case until an appeal over a res judicata ruling is decided at the Court of Appeal.
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 applicants deserve stay of proceedings pending appeal and the costs sought in the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for stay of proceedings pending appeal
The application was allowed in terms of the principal order of stay of proceedings, in the best interests of justice
The court noted that stay of proceedings is governed by Order 42 Rules 6 and 7, requiring substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security. An appeal was duly filed by Notice of Appeal against the ruling of 30 September 2025 dismissing the applicant's preliminary objection on res judicata. The application was lodged on 14 November 2025 without undue delay. Weighing the applicant's right of appeal under Articles 48, 50(1) and 25(c) against the competing claims, and balancing the interests of justice as in Somak Travels, the court found the application merited and granted the stay of proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal does not automatically operate as a stay but the court may order a stay for sufficient cause
- Stay of proceedings pending appeal is rooted in Order 42 Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and the applicant must satisfy the triple principles of substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and security
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of proceedings in Kapsabet Environment and Land Case No. E006 of 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal at the Court of Appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rules 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015; Articles 10(2), 48, 50(1) and 25(c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to be provided for by the respondent
Costs were not awarded to either party; they were made to abide the appeal outcome
Costs
Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal at the Court of 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.
In the best interests of justice, I find the application merited and it is hereby allowed in terms of the principal order of stay of proceedings sought therein.
By the nature of the application and the circumstances, costs of the same to abide the outcome of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Nonetheless, an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay but the court may order a stay for suficient cause.
In determining whether the intended appeal, if successful would be rendered nugatory if we do not grant the orders sought, we are alive to the fact that we must balance the competing claims of both parties and make orders that best suit the interests of justice.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the applicant variously as the '1st Defendant/Applicant' while the notice of motion describes the applicant as Elizabeth Jebet Cheruiyot; the respondent/plaintiff's name is never stated anywhere in the judgment
Contradiction: the court states stay is an equitable principle and not a right under Article 10(2) yet allows the stay application without making findings on substantial loss, delay and security as it had framed them
The Environment and Land Court Act is cited inconsistently as '2015 (2011)'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheruiyot v Maiyo & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1624 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet Environment and Land Case No. E006 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1624/eng@2026-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.