Khamis & 2 others (Suing on Their Own Behalf and as Trustees of Jamia Mosque Community Based Organization) v Mbale Muslim Mosque Committee (Suing Through Its Officials Juma Ramadhan & Zubeir Shogobe) & another (Environment and Land Appeal E022 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2953 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Vihiga Environment and Land Court paused enforcement of a plot judgment pending appeal, but only after the appellants deposit Kshs. 150,000 as security within 45 days.
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 Appellants/Applicants satisfied the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2) for stay of execution of the trial court's judgment pending appeal
- 2.Whether Josephat Saliku Iningu should be joined to the appeal as an Interested Party under Order 1 Rule 10(2)
Key legal issues
#Stay of execution pending appeal
Application allowed conditional on security of Kshs. 150,000 within 45 days
The court found plot No.56 and its rental income are the subject matter of the appeal; enforcing the trial court's orders (requiring the Applicants to account and indemnify the Respondent) before the appeal is heard would render the appeal nugatory and cause substantial loss. Stay was therefore granted subject to security under Order 42 Rule 6.
Joinder as Interested Party
Application dismissed; no locus standi demonstrated
The Applicant claimed to be heir and de facto manager of plot No.56 through his deceased father. He exhibited no grant or appointment as personal representative, and his father's letter of allotment concerned plot No.55, not the plot in issue, with no evidence the correction to No.56 ever occurred. The court had jurisdiction to join him but found the grounds not demonstrated.
Legal principles established
#- An order for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) requires demonstration of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and furnishing of security
- Persons acting on behalf of deceased persons or deceased-registered property must be duly appointed personal representatives under the Law of Succession Act
- Execution of a decree before appeal is heard may render the appeal nugatory and cause substantial loss
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 19th November, 2025 is allowed; stay of execution of the trial court's judgment granted pending hearing and determination of the appeal on condition that the Applicants deposit Kshs. 150,000/- in court as security within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses
- 2.The application dated 2nd December, 2025 is dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs of the applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Vihiga Magistrates' Court
- MCLE MISC Cause No. E010 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (appellate/stay jurisdiction) and Order 1 Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Rules (joinder)
Relief refused
#Joinder of Josephat Saliku Iningu as Interested Party
Applicant lacked locus standi to act for the estate of his deceased father and produced an allotment letter for plot No.55, not plot No.56
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs of the applications.
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.
I find that the application has merit and may be granted on condition that the applicants deposit security as provided for in Order 42 Rule 6.
The application dated 19th November, 2025, is allowed. An order of stay of execution of the judgment of the trial court is hereby granted pending hearing and determination of the appeal on condition that the Applicants deposit in court a sum of Kshs. 150,000/-
The application dated 2nd December, 2025, is hereby dismissed.
Each party to bear its own costs of the applications.
The law requires that persons who bring action on behalf of deceased persons or in respect of property registered in the name of deceased persons be persons duly appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Law of Succession Act as personal representatives of the deceased person.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering in the judgment is erratic (paragraphs 9-16 appear out of sequence and duplicated), but the substance is clear
The ruling refers to 'Applicants' filing an appeal and no submissions were filed on behalf of the Applicant despite the record stating the application was heard by way of written submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Khamis & 2 others (Suing on Their Own Behalf and as Trustees of Jamia Mosque Community Based Organization) v Mbale Muslim Mosque Committee (Suing Through Its Officials Juma Ramadhan & Zubeir Shogobe) & another (Environment and Land Appeal E022 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2953 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Vihiga MCLE MISC Cause No. E010 of 2023 (appeal therefrom). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2953/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.