Estate of the Late Kapelingorok Ariangatom (Represented by Samuel P Kapelongorok and Christopher K Ariangatom) v Kemerinyang & another (Environment and Land Case 68 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 2208 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Kitale refused to stop execution of a land judgment because the losing party showed no real loss and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Unreasonable delay
Delay of about one month between judgment and application was not inordinate, the applicants having attributed it to the unavailability of typed proceedings
Judgment was entered on 17/12/2025, notice of appeal filed 22/12/2025, and the application filed 22/1/2026. The court found the roughly one-month delay excusable because the applicants explained it by the court registry's failure to provide typed proceedings. Delay is only one of the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6 and here it was not inordinate.
Substantial loss
Not established; mere apprehension of eviction without evidence does not amount to substantial loss
Execution is a lawful process and does not by itself constitute substantial loss. The applicants alleged eviction and demolition but gave no evidence of impending execution by eviction; the respondents deposed that no eviction orders were sought or granted. Alleging occupation without showing when it started and on what justification is insufficient. The applicants failed to show how the substratum of the appeal would be negated.
Security for due performance of the decree
Condition precedent not satisfied; a vague offer to provide security as the court may direct is insufficient
The applicants offered no security other than stating readiness to offer as the court might direct, and could not offer a title since the suit land is not titled. The court held it is for a party to avail or make an offer of security commensurate with the decree; the court cannot suggest the nature of security.
Maintenance of status quo
Refused; the applicants did not define the status quo and no exceptional circumstances were shown
The alternative prayer failed because the applicants never defined what the current status quo was. Following Dodhia -vs- Wafula, the court held that stopping execution of a decree is not in the interest of justice unless exceptional circumstances exist why the successful party should be told to put a decree in abeyance. None were shown here.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution requires demonstration of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and provision of security for due performance of the decree
- Substantial loss is qualitative, of real value and not merely nominal; execution being a lawful process does not by itself amount to substantial loss
- A party, not the court, must propose the security commensurate with the decree
- Stopping execution of a decree is not in the interest of justice absent exceptional circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 22/1/2026 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules - stay of execution pending intended appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Estate of the Late Kapelingorok Ariangatom (Represented by Samuel P Kapelongorok and Christopher K Ariangatom) v Kemerinyang & another (Environment and Land Case 68 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 2208 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 22/1/2026 (arising from judgment delivered 17/12/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2208/eng@2026-04-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.