Onyango v Makanyanga & another (Environment and Land Case 178 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 1711 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega refused to pause eviction because the applicant waited three months too long and showed no real harm.
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 applicant has met the threshold for grant of orders of stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant met the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6
The applicant failed: the application was brought after inordinate delay (about 3 months after the 120-day vacate period expired) and the applicant was already in unlawful occupation; substantial loss was not demonstrated to the court's satisfaction.
Order 42 Rule 6 requires satisfaction that substantial loss may result, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given. The judgment of 27th March 2025 granted 120 days to vacate, expiring 27th July 2025; the application was filed 16th October 2025. Long occupation since 1964 was a matter already determined in the judgment and could not be revisited. Arguability of the appeal is beyond the trial court's jurisdiction at this stage.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in an application for stay of execution pending appeal, an applicant must demonstrate imminent substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and willingness to provide security; imminent execution alone is insufficient.
- Substantial loss is the cornerstone for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of motion dated 16th October 2025 seeking stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent/plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 27th March 2025 pending hearing and determination of Kisumu Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. E136 of 2025
The application was filed after inordinate delay, about 3 months after expiry of the 120 days granted to vacate, and the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss; the court cannot revisit issues already determined or interrogate the appeal's arguability
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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.
to succeed in seeking stay of execution pending appeal, an applicant ought to demonstrate imminent substantial loss; that they have sought stay without unreasonable delay and that they are willing to provide security for the due performance of the decree
I therefore find and hold that the application herein was filed after inordinate delay and when the applicant was already in unlawful occupation of the suit property.
The upshot is that I find no merit in the application dated 16th October 2025, which I hereby dismiss with costs to the respondent.
It is so ordered
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number or cite the underlying judgment/court details for the decree sought to be stayed beyond the pending appeal number (Kisumu Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. E136 of 2025); parties other than by role (2nd defendant applicant, plaintiff respondent) are not fully named in the judgment text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyango v Makanyanga & another (Environment and Land Case 178 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 1711 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1711/eng@2026-03-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.