Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedMeru ELC Appeal No E076 of 2021 (application dated 30/10/2025)

Ekandi v Etirikia (Environment and Land Appeal E058 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3736 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 June 2026
BEB M Eboso
1,266 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Meru dismissed a judgment debtor's bid to pause enforcement of a payment order because he cited the wrong rule and had no pending appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Stephen Nturibi Etirikia, was the judgment debtor in Tigania SPMC E&L Case No 12 of 2018, in which the decree-holder, Cyprian Mutabari Ekandi, obtained a money decree. The applicant's appeal against that judgment was dismissed on 18/1/2023. After a notice to show cause on committal to civil jail, the trial court, by ruling uploaded on 31/7/2025, declined immediate committal but ordered payment of half the decretal sum (Kshs 1,061,650) within 90 days, the balance in monthly instalments of Kshs 50,000, with committal to civil jail on default. Aggrieved, the decree-holder filed an appeal. The applicant then moved the court by application dated 30/10/2025 seeking stay of enforcement of those orders pending hearing of the appeal, offering to pay over time or transfer land parcel Tigania West/Akithi III/1948. The decree-holder opposed, arguing the applicant had not honoured the decree. Eboso J held that the application failed: the applicant invoked Order 40 (interlocutory injunctions) instead of Order 42 rule 6(2) (stay pending appeal) and argued the Giella v Cassman Brown injunction test, revealing a misapprehension of the plea; the applicant, being a judgment debtor with no cross-appeal, could not anchor a stay plea; substantial loss was not demonstrated; no security was offered; and there was a three-month delay. The application was dismissed with costs to the applicant's burden.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application dated 30/10/2025 meets the criteria upon which the court exercises jurisdiction to grant an order of stay of execution pending the hearing and disposal of an appeal before it

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application satisfies the criteria for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2)

Holding

It does not. The applicant invoked the wrong provision (Order 40), argued an interlocutory injunction test, had no appeal of his own, failed to demonstrate substantial loss, offered no security, and brought the application after a three-month delay.

Reasoning

The court held that Order 40 governs interlocutory injunctions in trial jurisdiction and cannot found a stay pending appeal; only Order 42 rule 6(2) does. The applicant, a judgment debtor whose substantive appeal was dismissed, was not aggrieved by the impugned ruling and elected not to appeal it. He did not demonstrate substantial loss, said nothing on security, and delayed three months. Costs follow the event.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules confers jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunctions when the court sits as a trial court, but does not confer jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending appeal, which is governed by Order 42 rule 6(2)
  • A judgment debtor who has no cross-appeal of his own cannot anchor a plea for stay of execution pending appeal, and cannot claim substantial loss pending disposal of 'his appeal' where his earlier appeal was dismissed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 30/10/2025 is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit
  2. 2.The applicant, Stephen Nturibi Etirikia, shall bear costs of the application

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

BE
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal); Environment and Land Court Act jurisdiction

Relief refused

#

Stay of enforcement of the trial court's orders of 31/7/2025 pending hearing and disposal of the appeal

The application did not meet the Order 42 rule 6(2) criteria; it was also pleaded as an injunction claim, there was no appeal by the applicant to anchor the plea, no demonstration of substantial loss, no offer of security, and unreasonable delay

p. 3

Costs

The applicant, Stephen Nturibi Etirikia, shall bear costs of the application

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.

In the end, having evaluated the application dated 30/10/2025, the response to the application, and the parties' submissions, the application is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit. The applicant, Stephen Nturibi Etirikia, shall bear costs of the application.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal of the stay application and costs
Order 40 deals with this court's jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction when exercising jurisdiction as a trial court. It does not confer jurisdiction upon this court to grant an order of stay of execution pending the hearing and disposal of an appeal.
p. 2Wrong legal basis for stay of execution pending appeal
There is no appeal of his own upon which he can anchor the plea for an order of stay of execution.
p. 3A non-appealling judgment debtor cannot seek stay pending appeal
On costs, the general principle is that, costs follow the event. No proper basis has been demonstrated to warrant a departure from the general principle.
p. 3Costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Submissions dated 1/12/2026 postdate the ruling date of 8/6/2026 - an apparent typographical error in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ekandi v Etirikia (Environment and Land Appeal E058 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3736 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Meru ELC Appeal No E076 of 2021 (application dated 30/10/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3736/eng@2026-06-08

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.