Sarich & another v Marigi & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal E048 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2984 (KLR)

2. The 1st and 4th Respondents filed the notice of preliminary objection dated 12th November 2025 alongside a replying afidavit in response to the Appellants’ application of 4th November 2025. 3. Pursuant to the directions of this court issued on 18th March 2026, the preliminary objection by the 1st and 4th Respondents was to be heard first and by way of written submissions. On the said date, parties notified the court of a status quo order issued by the Court of Appeal in an appeal preferred against the judgement of this court. However, the order was not presented to this court at the time. It was only later in the afternoon of 18th March 2026, that the Law firm of Terry Wasilwa & Company Advocates filed the scanned order of from the Court of Appeal. It is now on the record of this court. The status quo order. 4. The order by the Court of Appeal was issued on 25th February 2026 in Nairobi Civil Application No. E736 of 2025. The order reads as follows; “ After engaging the parties, counsel for the applicants and 1st & 2nd Respondents, agreed to maintain the Status quo in respect of the suit properties pending hearing and determination of the appeal, the efiect of it is, there should be no interference of the titles of the suit properties, and that there should be no interference with possession of the suit properties, until the appeal is heard and determined. The costs of this application will be in the appeal.” Decision of this Court on pending application and the preliminary objection 5. Undoubtedly, the Court of Appeal is duly seized of the appeal against the judgement of this court. According to the notice of appeal filed, the 1st and 4th Respondents are aggrieved by the entire judgement of this court. They have a right to seek a second opinion from the Court of Appeal. 6. The issues raised in the application of 4th November 2025 arise from the impugned judgement of this court. This court considers it inappropriate to continue with the hearing of applications incidental to its judgement while the Court of Appeal is at the same time considering an appeal against the same judgement whose decision is ultimately binding on this court. 7. This court appreciates the significance of respecting the hierarchy of the judicial system as one of the principles guiding exercise of jurisdiction under articles 63(4) of the Constitution. Article 10 further commands this court to uphold the rule of law. 8. Consequently, the court considers it in the interest of justice to stay any farther proceedings in this case awaiting the outcome of the appeal lodged in the Court of Appeal. This will avoid multiplicity of decisions over the same issue. 9. Having considered the terms of the order of status quo issued by the Court of Appeal, this court is satisfied that no party will be prejudiced in any way by an order of stay of proceedings. The Appellants in this case who are in possession of the suit properties will continue enjoying the possession awaiting the outcome of the appeal. 10. Therefore, this court exercising its inherent powers for the ends of justice, stays any further proceedings in this case awaiting the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2026. M.D. MWANGI https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2984/eng@2026-05-13 2

page 2 of 3

JUDGE In the virtual presence of: Mr. Bett for the Applicants/Applicants Ms. Wasilwa for the 1st and 4th Respondents N/A by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents Court Assistant: Alex https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2984/eng@2026-05-13 3

page 3 of 3