Tumbes v Osore & 3 others; Neo Developers Limited (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 45 of 2018 & 84 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2900 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kajiado Environment and Land Court froze all dealings with contested land until an appeal is decided, rejecting a Kshs. 27 million cash deposit.
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 2nd Defendant/Applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) were met
The court found the threshold satisfied: substantial loss was demonstrated because the decree affected proprietary rights in land and could render the appeal nugatory; delay was not inordinate; and preservation of the suit property constituted adequate security.
The court applied Order 42 Rule 6(2) and the purpose of stay as preserving the subject matter so a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory, while balancing the respondent's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment. The decretal orders were declaratory, injunctive and rectification orders over land, so alteration of the register could complicate reversal if the appeal succeeded. Delay of about two and a half months was explained. Security was addressed by maintaining the status quo over the title rather than a cash deposit.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution pending appeal requires demonstration of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and furnishing of security
- Where the subject matter is immovable property whose ownership is contested on appeal, preservation of the substratum of the appeal may justify a stay
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 6th May 2025 together with all consequential orders pending the hearing and determination of Nairobi COACA/E532/2025
- 2.Maintenance of the prevailing status quo in respect of land parcel Kajiado/Kisaju/11355 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 3.No sale, transfer, alienation, charging, leasing, subdivision or any other adverse dealings with the suit property pending determination of the appeal
- 4.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal, Nairobi
- Nairobi COACA/E532/2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rules 6 & 3, Order 51 Rules 1 & 3 and Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Consolidated with
- Kajiado ELC No. 84 of 2019
Relief refused
#Deposit of Kshs. 27,000,000 as security as urged by the Plaintiff
The court instead preserved the suit property as security, noting no monetary decree in favour of the Plaintiff and that status quo orders already existed
Costs
The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the 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.
A. There shall be a stay of execution of the Judgment delivered on 6th May 2025 together with all consequential orders pending the hearing and determination of Nairobi COACA/E532/2025.
C. For avoidance of doubt, there shall be no sale, transfer, alienation, charging, leasing, subdivision or any other adverse dealings with the suit property pending determination of the appeal.
The purpose of an order for stay pending appeal was succinctly captured in Chiri v Mumbi (Civil Appeal E266 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 18630 (KLR)
Substantial loss in its various forms, is the corner stone of both jurisdictions for granting a stay. That is what has to be prevented.
The Court must equally ensure that the right of appeal is not rendered illusory.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment consistently misspells 'Plaintiff' as 'Plaintifi' throughout the text
The monetary decree of Kshs. 27,000,000 is described as being in favour of the 'Interested Party' although earlier text suggests it was compensation ordered to the Plaintiff
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tumbes v Osore & 3 others; Neo Developers Limited (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 45 of 2018 & 84 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2900 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kajiado ELC (Consolidated) — Ruling on Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2900/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.