Jelimo & another v Chumba
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court paused eviction proceedings, giving the losing party 15 days to file an appeal and deposit Kshs 15,000 as 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 applicants have established the conditions in respect of stay of execution of judgment and decree herein
- 2.whether the applicants have established the conditions in respect of appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
Applicants demonstrated substantial loss because execution would render the intended appeal nugatory, depriving them of a fair hearing.
The court noted disputed ownership of property from which the other party seeks eviction, and that an appeal had been lodged at the Court of Appeal. It held there can be no greater loss than loss of the right to be fairly heard, satisfying the first requirement under Order 42 Rule 6(2).
Unreasonable delay
The delay was justified by the former advocate's failure to act and the 1st applicant's illness; the reasons were rational and plausible.
Relying on Supreme Court authorities in Muya and Karani, the court held the focus is on justification rather than length of delay. The applicants' notice of appeal, request for proceedings and medical records demonstrated diligence and illness during the relevant period.
Security for due performance
Applicants must deposit security of Kshs 15,000/= within 15 days as a condition of the stay.
Following Vishram Ravji Halai and Arun C Sharma, the court found that once substantial loss and justified delay were established, security for due performance of the decree was required, and fixed a modest deposit with automatic lapse on default.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the single most important consideration in determining whether a stay should issue.
- The focus in inordinate delay is not the length of delay per se but the justification and reasons, which must be rational and plausible.
- Security under Order 42 guarantees due performance of the decree and is not punitive.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of stay of execution of the judgment dated 10th February 2025 issued subject to the Applicants depositing in Court security of Kshs 15,000/= within 15 days, failing which the stay and enlargement of time lapse automatically
- 2.The time to file and serve the intended appeal is enlarged for the next fifteen days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- 4.Case closed
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 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
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.
An order of stay of execution of the judgment dated 10th February 2025 be issued subject to the Applicants depositing in Court security of Kshs 15,000/= (Kenya shillings fifteen thousand only) within 15 days of this date failure of which the stay of execution and enlargement of time to lapse automatically.
The time to file and serve the intended appeal is enlarged for the next fifteen days from this date.
Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.
there can never be a greater loss, than the loss of the right to be fairly heard.
the focus should not be on the length of the delay per se, but also on the justification and reasons, which in turn must be rational and plausible.
Issues in the judgment
#Application dated 13th March 2026 but delay described as over one year from February 2025 judgment; chronology inconsistent.
Medical tests dated 27th July 2023 predate the judgment of 10th February 2025 they are meant to explain delay for.
1st applicant's gender stated inconsistently within the ruling.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jelimo & another v Chumba", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA E006 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6144/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.