Full Gospel Churches of Kenya - through its Registered Trustees v M'Ramare & another (Being sued as the legal representatives of M’Ramare Nkunga alias Ramare Nkunga) (Land Originating Summons E014 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3816 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Applicants have established sufficient cause
- 2.Whether the subject application was mounted with unreasonable and unexplained delay or otherwise
- 3.Whether the Applicants have demonstrated a likelihood of substantial loss occurring, if the orders sought are not granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicants established sufficient cause for a stay
Sufficient cause established by the filing of a Notice of Appeal within time; the court need only confirm that a Notice of Appeal has been filed, not its validity
The court held that under Order 42 Rule 6(4) it need only interrogate whether a Notice of Appeal has been filed. Whether the Notice was served within time and whether the appeal is competent fall outside the trial court's jurisdictional remit. A Notice of Appeal was filed within the timelines in Rule 77 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, and its filing was conceded. However, sufficient cause alone is not enough; the applicant must still meet the Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions.
Whether the application was mounted with unreasonable and unexplained delay
Yes - the delay of over 18 months was inordinate and unexplained, defeating the application under the doctrine of laches
Judgment was delivered on 02.10.2024 but the stay application was filed after more than 18 months, following the Respondent's successful application to lift the inhibition. The Applicants offered no reason or explanation for the delay. Citing Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet, the court held that any unexplained delay, even of 7 days, may be inordinate, and invoked the doctrine of laches per Chief Land Registrar & 5 others v Koech & 3 others.
Whether the Applicants demonstrated substantial loss
No - substantial loss was neither impleaded in the application nor deposed to in the supporting affidavit
Applying Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru, the court held that substantial loss is the cornerstone of a stay application and must be express and explicit, not inferred. The Applicants did not plead substantial loss in the application or aver to it in the affidavit. Their only complaint was fear of execution of a lawful decree, which cannot itself constitute substantial loss, per Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal does not itself operate as a stay; the applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause and satisfy the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6
- Unexplained delay, however short, may be inordinate; delay must be satisfactorily explained
- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay and must be expressly pleaded and proved by affidavit evidence
- Execution of a lawful decree does not by itself constitute substantial loss
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 30.03.2026 be and is hereby Dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondent
- 3.The costs shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment/decree dated 02.10.2024 and all consequential orders pending inter partes hearing of the application
Application defeated by the doctrine of laches due to inordinate unexplained delay; substantial loss neither impleaded nor substantiated
Stay of execution of the judgment/decree dated 02.10.2024 and all consequential orders pending the hearing and determination of Nyeri Civil Appeal No. E259 of 2025
Applicants failed to satisfy the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2); no evidence of substantial loss
Costs
Costs of the Application awarded to the Respondent, to be agreed upon and in default taxed in the conventional manner
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 Application dated 30.03.2026 be and is hereby Dismissed.
Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondent.
I find and hold that the application beforehand is defeated by the Doctrine of Laches
substantial loss is the key pillar or cornerstone upon which an order of stay of execution is premised
execution by and of itself, cannot create substantial loss
Issues in the judgment
#The same authority appears twice in the judgment with different citations/formats: 'Kenya Shell limited versus Benjamin Karuga Kiburu and another [1986] eKLR' (as cited by Respondent) and 'Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & anorther [1986] KECA 94 (KLR)' (as cited by the court), the latter containing the typographical error 'anorther'
The judgment refers throughout to 'defendants/Applicants' and 'plaintiff/Respondent', and to the applicants by a role designation inconsistent with the parties' designation in the pending appeal, but this does not create internal contradiction
The Notice of Motion is dated 30.03.2026 and directions were given on 28.05.2026 for filing of submissions within 7 days, yet the Applicants' submissions are dated 21.05.2026, i.e. before the directions date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Full Gospel Churches of Kenya - through its Registered Trustees v M'Ramare & another (Being sued as the legal representatives of M’Ramare Nkunga alias Ramare Nkunga) (Land Originating Summons E014 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3816 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Ruling on Notice of Motion dated 30.03.2026 (suit judgment dated 02.10.2024); Nyeri Civil Appeal No. E259 of 2025 pending. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3816/eng@2026-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.