Samora Sikalieh (suing as the chairman of Karen & Langata District Association (KLDA)) v De La Salle Brothers & 5 others
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to pause the Karen land petition, ruling that defending a case is not enough harm to justify a stay.
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 Court should grant a stay of proceedings pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal against the Ruling delivered on 29.7.2025
- 2.Whether the intended appeal is arguable and would be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted
- 3.Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify a stay of proceedings
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the Petition proceeds
No - the impugned ruling merely reinstated the Petition for hearing and did not alter the physical status of the suit property; any erroneous proceedings can later be set aside
The ruling of 29.7.2025 did not finally determine the substantive constitutional and planning issues; it only reinstated the Petition. Allowing the Petition to proceed does not transfer ownership, authorise development, or alter LR No. 7943. The property is immovable and its existence does not depend on the proceedings, so no irreversible harm was shown.
Whether substantial loss was demonstrated
No - ordinary litigation expenses and inconvenience do not constitute substantial loss, and no evidence of irreversible damage was presented
The Applicant offered no evidence of destruction, alienation or irreversible alteration of the suit property, nor of impending financial ruin. The only potential loss was the legal costs of defending the Petition, which are an ordinary incident of litigation compensable by an award of costs if the appeal succeeds.
Whether exceptional circumstances and expeditious filing justified the stay
No - the application was filed approximately three months after the ruling, and no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay were shown
The Applicant was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and expeditious filing under the Ramogi principles. The application was filed about 90 days after the ruling of 29.7.2025; the explanation of delay in obtaining a certified copy was considered but the Court found the threshold unmet overall.
Legal principles established
#- A stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy requiring compelling circumstances; an applicant must show the appeal is arguable and would be rendered nugatory, plus exceptional circumstances and expeditious filing
- An arguable appeal need only raise a single bona fide arguable ground; it need not necessarily succeed
- Whether an appeal will be rendered nugatory depends on whether what is sought to be stayed is irreversible or whether damages will reasonably compensate the aggrieved party
- Mere legal costs and inconvenience of participating in a trial do not, without more, constitute substantial loss
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Respondent/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 29.10.2025 is dismissed
- 2.The proceedings in Nairobi Petition No. E071 of 2024 shall proceed in accordance with the directions of the Court
- 3.The cost of the application shall abide the outcome of the petition
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 (stay of proceedings pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal
The application did not meet the threshold for stay of proceedings; no substantial loss or risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory was demonstrated
Costs
The cost of the application shall abide the outcome of the petition.
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.
A stay of proceedings constitutes a more drastic form of judicial intervention, as it effectively halts the hearing and determination of a matter before the trial Court. The Court must, therefore, be satisfied that there exist compelling circumstances warranting the grant of such an order.
The act of allowing the petition to proceed for hearing does not, of itself, transfer ownership of the suit property, authorise development, demolish existing structures, or otherwise alter the physical status of LR No. 7943.
The fact that the Applicant may be required to incur legal expenses or expend time and resources in defending the Petition does not, without more, amount to substantial loss.
That the 1st Respondent/Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 29.10.2025 is hereby dismissed.
That the proceedings in Nairobi Petition No. E071 OF 2024 shall proceed in accordance with the directions of the Court.
The cost of the application shall abide the outcome of the petition.
Issues in the judgment
#Duplicate paragraph numbering: two paragraphs numbered 9 in the recitation of the application
Kinyanjui v Ketter cited with inconsistent citations (2013 KECA 378 KLR vs (2013) eKLR)
Court relies on a Court of Appeal ruling (Elisha Kare Busieniei) delivered on 2nd October 2026, the same date as this ruling
Applicant's submissions dated 17th July 2026 post-date the replying affidavit timeline and the ruling of 29.7.2025 inconsistently within the narrative
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samora Sikalieh (suing as the chairman of Karen & Langata District Association (KLDA)) v De La Salle Brothers & 5 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition Number E071 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6227/eng@2026-10-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.