Kapkiyai v Rongoei & another (Environment and Land Case 550 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4050 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court paused an eviction so landowners can appeal, but only if they each deposit KShs. 750,000 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 applications meet the threshold for granting the orders of stay of execution of the judgment pending the intended Appeal
- 2.Who shall bear the costs of the two applications?
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants demonstrated substantial loss warranting stay of execution
Substantial loss was established because eviction would strip the applicants of possession of land whose ownership is under challenge, likely rendering the intended appeals nugatory
The judgment required the Defendant and Third Party to vacate the suit land within 90 days, failing which eviction would issue automatically. The appeal challenges ownership of the property, and eviction at this stage would cause them to lose whatever proprietary interests their possession evidences, an outcome difficult and expensive to reverse. The appeal not being frivolous, execution would render it practically nugatory.
Whether the applications were made without undue delay
Both applications, filed roughly two months after the 13th November 2025 judgment, were made without undue delay
Judgment was delivered on 13th November 2025; the first application was filed on 3rd February 2026 and the second on 12th February 2026. The court found approximately two months to be within the requirement of expediency under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a).
Whether the applicants satisfied the security condition
An offer of willingness to furnish security suffices, as the court determines the nature and sufficiency of security upon granting a stay
Although no express security was proposed, both applicants deponed readiness to abide by any conditions the court imposed. Relying on Focin Motorcycle Co. Limited vs Ann Wambui Wangui, the court held this to be a mark of good faith and sufficient. The court then fixed KShs. 750,000/- each into a joint interest-earning account as its own security condition.
Who should bear the costs of the two applications
Despite the applicants' success, no order as to costs was made given the delay caused to the plaintiff
Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, but the court retains discretion under the proviso. Because the stay delays the plaintiff, who waited some 17 years for her judgment, from enjoying its fruits, the court found no justification for burdening her with the applicants' costs and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending appeal
- It is sufficient for an applicant to express readiness to provide security; the court determines the nature and sufficiency of the security
Court orders
#- 1.There shall be a stay of the execution of the judgment and decree issued on 13/11/2025 in Eldoret ELC No. 550 of 2012, pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal lodged at the Eldoret Court of Appeal being Civil Appeal No. E015 of 2026 as well as the Appeal by the Third Party
- 2.The stay is conditional on the Defendant and the Third Party depositing KShs. 750,000/- each into a joint interest earning account held by the Advocates for the parties within 45 days, failing which the stay shall automatically lapse
- 3.There shall be no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Costs of the applications by the successful plaintiff
The grant of the orders sought will delay the Plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of her judgment, which she has long awaited; there was no justification for further burdening her, but the court instead ordered no costs at all
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs; each party shall bear their own 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.
There shall be a stay of the execution of the judgment and decree issued on 13/11/2025 in Eldoret ELC No. 550 of 2012; Alice Kapkiyai vs Hellen Jeptanui Rongoei and Kibwambok Kirwa, pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal lodged at the Eldoret Court of Appeal being Civil Appeal No. E015 of 2026 as well as the Appeal by the Third Party.
The stay granted at (a) above shall be conditional on the Applicants in the two applications, the Defendant and the Third Party herein, shall within 45 days from the date hereof, deposit the sum of KShs. 750,000/- each into a joint interest earning account held by the Advocates for the parties herein, failure to which the stay of execution granted herein shall automatically lapse.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Substantial loss in its various forms, is the cornerstone of both jurisdictions for granting stay.
the Applicants equally have a constitutionally protected right to pursue their appeal without the threat of execution. This right to appeal encompasses that such appeal shall not be rendered nugatory.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records two different spellings of the suit parcel - 'Nandi/Mutwot/43' and 'Nandi/Mutwol/43'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Viscjhi & another v Mulewa & others (Environment and Land Case 210 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 879 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 879 (KLR)19 Feb 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kapkiyai v Rongoei & another (Environment and Land Case 550 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4050 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 550 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4050/eng@2026-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.