Amol (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Japhet Juma Fred - Dcd) v Omondi & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3639 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck a lender out of a land fraud case and made it pay all costs, then refused to pause the case for a related succession matter.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether costs of the suit and of the application dated 10th February 2025, as against the 18th defendant should be awarded to the plaintiff
- 2.Whether there is lawful justification for proceedings herein to be stayed
Key legal issues
#Whether costs should be awarded against the 18th defendant, a chargee struck out of the suit
The 18th defendant was liable to pay costs because it conceded the root of title was tainted yet delayed the matter for two years in bad faith, refusing consent to settlement and seeking adjournments
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event but the discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the conduct of the parties. The 18th defendant's defence did not contest the allegation of fraud, and the case did not turn on whether the borrower repaid the loan. Its continued resistance, waiting for the borrower to settle the loan while the tainted root of title was conceded, was unjustified and wasted judicial time.
Whether proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of a succession cause concerning the parent parcel
Stay was refused because this Court and the succession court exercise different jurisdictions, so there is no risk of conflicting judgments, and the high threshold for stay was not met
Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action impinging on access to justice and the right to a fair trial, so the test is high and stringent. Article 162(2)(b) confers on this Court jurisdiction over title to land, whereas succession courts deal with distribution of a deceased's property and do not determine ownership of land. The likelihood of contradictory judgments was therefore not plausible, and no compelling reason to stall the suit existed.
Legal principles established
#- Innocence on the part of a party transacting with a fraudster cannot validate a transaction founded on fraud
- The threshold for stay of proceedings is higher than that for stay of execution and the applicant must show demonstrable injustice
- The Succession Court has no jurisdiction to determine questions of ownership of land
Court orders
#- 1.The 18th defendant's application dated 10th February 2025 is allowed and the 18th defendant's name is struck out from these proceedings
- 2.Costs of the application dated 10th February 2025 and costs of the suit as against the 18th defendant are awarded to the plaintiff and shall be borne by the 18th defendant
- 3.The 1st, 2nd, 6th and 8th defendants' application dated 16th October 2025 seeking stay of proceedings is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings pending hearing and determination of Kakamega CMC Succession Cause No. 321 of 2023
The Environment and Land Court and the Succession Court exercise different jurisdictions and there is no risk of conflicting judgments; the applicant did not demonstrate demonstrable injustice
Costs
Costs of the suit and of the application dated 10th February 2025 awarded to the plaintiff and borne by the 18th defendant; the application dated 16th October 2025 dismissed with costs.
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.
The 18th defendant's name is hereby struck out from these proceedings and the plaintiff is hereby awarded the costs of the application dated 10th February 2025 together with costs of the suit as against the 18th defendant, which shall be borne by the 18th defendant.
As there is no compelling reasons why these proceedings should be stalled, I find no merit in the application dated 16th October 2025, which I dismiss with costs.
Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with the right of a litigant to conduct his litigation. It impinges on the right of access to justice, right to be heard without delay, and overall right to fair trial.
innocence on the part of a party transacting with a fraudster cannot validate a transaction founded on fraud
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the 16th October 2025 application as filed by the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 8th defendants in the introduction, but elsewhere refers to it as filed by the 1st, 2nd and 6th defendants only
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amol (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Japhet Juma Fred - Dcd) v Omondi & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3639 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3639/eng@2026-06-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.