Sarich & another v Marigi & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E048 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2984 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court paused all further action in a Ngong land dispute until the Court of Appeal decides the appeal, letting the buyer keep possession meanwhile.
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 court should stay further proceedings in the case (including the Appellants' application of 4th November 2025 and the 1st and 4th Respondents' preliminary objection dated 12th November 2025) pending the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the court should stay further proceedings incidental to its own judgment pending an appeal in the Court of Appeal
Yes. Given the pendency of the appeal and the Court of Appeal's status quo order of 25th February 2026, the court stayed all further proceedings, holding that the Appellants (in possession) suffer no prejudice.
The Court of Appeal is seized of an appeal against the court's judgment. Continuing to hear applications arising from that judgment would risk conflicting decisions. The hierarchy of courts and Article 10's rule-of-law command weigh in favour of a stay. The status quo order preserves the Appellants' possession of the suit properties and the titles, so no party is prejudiced. The stay was granted under the court's inherent powers for the ends of justice.
Legal principles established
#- Where an appeal against a first-instance judgment is pending before the Court of Appeal, the trial court should stay proceedings on applications incidental to that judgment to avoid multiplicity of decisions and respect the hierarchy of courts.
- Respect for the hierarchy of the judicial system guides the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, and the rule of law under Article 10 must be upheld.
Court orders
#- 1.The court, exercising its inherent powers for the ends of justice, stays any further proceedings in this case awaiting the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Senior Resident Magistrate's Court at Ngong
- Ngong MCELC E033 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the court for the ends of justice; hierarchy of courts under Article 163(4) of the Constitution and Article 10 (rule of law). Note: the judgment cites 'articles 63(4)' which appears to be a typographical reference to Article 164(4) (ELC appellate jurisdiction).
Relief refused
#Determination of the Appellants' application dated 4th November 2025 seeking extension of time (by 30 days) to pay the balance of the purchase price
The court declined to entertain applications incidental to its judgment while the Court of Appeal is considering an appeal against the same judgment, and stayed the proceedings instead.
Determination of the 1st and 4th Respondents' preliminary objection dated 12th November 2025
Stayed along with all further proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal in the Court of Appeal.
Costs
No costs order was made in the ruling.
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.
Therefore, this court exercising its inherent powers for the ends of justice, stays any farther proceedings in this case awaiting the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal. Orders accordingly.
This court considers it inappropriate to continue with the hearing of applications incidental to its judgement while the Court of Appeal is at the same time considering an appeal against the same judgement whose decision is ultimately binding on this court.
This will avoid multiplicity of decisions over the same issue.
The Appellants in this case who are in possession of the suit properties will continue enjoying the possession awaiting the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state its own case number or court station on its face.
The judgment cites 'articles 63(4)' of the Constitution when the appellate jurisdiction of the ELC is constitutionally anchored in Article 164(4); this appears to be a typographical error in the judgment itself.
Internal date anomaly: directions were 'issued on 18th March 2026' yet the application was filed 4th November 2025 and the ruling delivered 13th May 2026; the sequence of 2026 dates is unusual but internally consistent as printed.
The appearance section reads 'Mr. Bett for the Applicants/Applicants', apparently a typographical duplication (likely intended as Appellants/Applicants).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sarich & another v Marigi & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E048 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2984 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated on the face of the judgment (the court was exercising appellate jurisdiction over Ngong MCELC E033 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2984/eng@2026-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.