Garissa Mattresses Ltd v Wamwandu & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 316 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 4364 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court granted 300 households, schools and a church temporary protection from eviction pending appeal, but only for 200 days and only if they deposit security.
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 application for stay of execution pending appeal was brought without undue delay
- 2.Whether the applicants will suffer substantial loss unless stay is granted
- 3.Whether security for the due performance of the decree has been offered
Key legal issues
#Whether the application was brought without undue delay
The court found the application was not made with undue delay, considering the many parties involved and that the appeal was already filed
The court took into account that the applicants are numerous, including churches and schools, and that the appeal had already been lodged and was pending allocation of a hearing date, so no inordinate delay was found despite the interval since judgment.
Whether the applicants will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted
The court found substantial loss would result from eviction, given schools and a church on the suit property and the effect on school-going children
The court was persuaded that eviction would close schools and churches and irreparably affect school-going children, satisfying the substantial loss threshold despite the respondent's argument that the applicants had no interest in the property and that irreparable loss is distinct from substantial loss.
Security for the due performance of the decree
The court imposed security as a condition of the stay, either KSH 500,000 in court or, in the alternative, Ksh 200,000 cash in a joint interest account within 60 days
Although the applicants had not offered security in their application, the court exercised its discretion to grant the stay subject to a security condition, effectively curing the omission by building security into the order.
Legal principles established
#- The three conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 are conjunctive and an applicant must meet all of them
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 7th November 2024 granted pending appeal, but for only 200 days
- 2.Stay conditional on the applicants depositing security of the value of KSH 500,000 in court
- 3.In the alternative, a cash deposit of Ksh 200,000 in a joint account opened in a reputable bank in the names of counsel on record within the next 60 days
- 4.Costs of the application in the appeal
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; the application is for stay of execution of this court's judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Relief refused
#Unlimited/indefinite stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of Appeal No. E146 of 2025
The court granted the stay only for a limited period of 200 days and on conditions of security
Costs
Costs of the application in the appeal
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 upshot of the above, I do grant a stay of execution pending appeal but for only 200 days. This is on condition that the applicants deposit security of the value of KSH 500,000 in court.
On substantial loss, I do find that if evicted, the applicants will sufier substantial loss in terms of the schools being closed, and churches being closed and that the school going children will be irreparably afiected.
The above conditions are conjunctive. That means that an applicant must meet all of them before an order of stay of execution can be granted.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment contains conflicting dates for the delivery of the main judgment - paragraph 1 and 4 state 7th November 2024 while paragraph 14 states the judgment was delivered on 7th November 2025
The judgment is undated on its face; the application is dated 26th February 2026, so the date of the ruling could only be inferred as after that date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Garissa Mattresses Ltd v Wamwandu & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 316 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 4364 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (relates to Appeal No. E146 of 2025, Court of Appeal, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4364/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.