https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3556

Rama v Roria & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 505 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3556 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3556 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Case 505 of 2024 JG Kemei, J June 10, 2026 Between Anna Ngiana Rama Plaintiff and Grace Roria 1st Defendant Thome Farmers Company No 1 Limited 2nd Defendant and Nairobi County Government Defendant to the Counterclaim Ruling Background 1.Vide the Notice of Motion application dated 8/4/2026, which is expressed to be brought under the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution, Section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the 1st Defendant/Applicant substantively seeks orders THAT;a.This Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order for stay of proceedings in this suit; Milimani ELC Case No. E505 of 2024; Anna Ngiana Rama –vs- Grace Roria & 2 Others pending the hearing and determination of Milimani MCCC No. 1492 of 2018; Anna Ngiana Rama –vs- City Council of Nairobi & Karanja Roria.b.This Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order for stay of proceedings in this suit; Milimani ELC Case No. E505 of 2024; Anna Ngiana Rama –vs- Grace Roria & 2 Others pending the hearing and determination of Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025; Karanja Roria (represented by administrator ad litem Grace Warii Roria) –vs- City Council of Nairobi.c.In the alternative to prayers 2 & 3 above, the Court be pleased to order a consolidation of Milimani ELC Case No. E505 of 2024; Anna Ngiana Rama –vs- Grace Roria & 2 Others and Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025; Karanja Roria (represented by administrator ad litem Grace Warii Roria) –vs- City Council of Nairobi with the present suit for simultaneous hearing and determination.d.The costs of this Application be in the cause. 2.The application is based on the grounds set out on its face and reiterated in the Applicant’s supporting Affidavit, sworn on 8/4/2026. In summary, the Applicant avers that the Plaintiff herein claims ownership of the suit property, Land Reference No. NAIROBI/BLOCK 110/360, within Thome Estate, by virtue of a sale by auction on 19/12/2013. That the sale was pursuant to orders issued on 22/8/2013 in Chief Magistrate Court Suit No. 5 of 2013, City Council of Nairobi –vs- Karanja Roria. He avers that subsequently, the Plaintiff instituted Milimani MCCC No. 1492 of 2018, Anna Ngiana Rama –vs- City Council of Nairobi & Karanja Roria, and successfully obtained a vesting order on 11/9/2018. That subsequently, a title in respect of the suit property was issued on 18/7/2024. 3.The Applicant contends that both suits, CMCC No. 5 of 2013 and CMCC No. 1492 of 2018, were nullities in law because they were instituted against the deceased registered proprietor, Karanja Roria, who died on 2/12/2002. She has therefore sought to reopen both suits to set aside the orders issued therein. She avers that she lodged Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025 to challenge the decisions and orders that facilitated the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the suit property. 4.The deponent asserts that the validity of the orders issued in the two suits is central to the present proceedings. The instant suit seeks to evict them from the suit property, and it is crucial that the challenge to the validity of those orders be heard first. She argues that there is a risk of inconsistent decisions, duplication of proceedings and unnecessary costs. She further argues that the application has been filed promptly and in good faith, without undue delay after discovery of the material facts giving rise to the present application. 5.That it is therefore in the interests of justice and the orderly administration of justice that the proceedings herein be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the said application and appeal, to prevent an abuse of the Court process. The Plaintiff’s Replying Affidavit 6.The Plaintiff opposed the application by her reply affidavit, deposed on 13/4/2026. The Plaintiff contends that the application is a blatant abuse of the Court process, intended to delay the hearing and determination of the suit and to frustrate her. She asserts that she is the bona fide purchaser for value of the suit property, having acquired it at a public auction on 19/12/2013, and that a judgment was entered in City Court Suit No. 5 of 2013. 7.She deposes that she sought vesting orders in MCCC No. 1492 of 2018, which were issued on 18/6/2018. She further deposes that the assertion that the proceedings in MCCC 1492 of 2018 were a nullity is misconceived, as she successfully obtained a Vesting Order after due advertisement and hearing. She argues that the certificate of title issued to her on 18/7/2024 is conclusive evidence of ownership and is indefeasible under Section 26 of the Land Registration Act. 8.As for Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025; Karanja Roria (through Grace Warii Roria –vs- City Council of Nairobi), she states that it arises out of the dismissal of Milimani MCELC MISC/E181/2025, to which she is not a party. She further avers that the Applicant is precluded from challenging the rates suit, Nairobi City Court Case No. 5 of 2013, as it offends Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act. She contends that the Applicant slept on her right for over 23 years and only sought to challenge her acquisition when she tried to develop the land. She further contends that if the Applicant and her brother indeed resided in the suit property all their lives, they ought to have filed an objection in the suit before the City Court on the basis that their grandfather died in the year 2002. Having failed to challenge the suit and the auction, which was widely advertised, their claim is time-barred. She maintains that prior to the purchase of the suit property, it was vacant and undeveloped. 9.The Plaintiff argues that the pendency of an application in a subordinate Magistrate’s Court or of a fresh parallel ELC Appeal cannot stay proceedings, and that any such application is time-barred. She further contends that she would suffer irreparable prejudice if a stay were granted. The Applicant’s Supplementary Affidavit 10.The Applicant filed a supplementary affidavit dated 25/5/2026 in response to the Plaintiff’s Replying Affidavit. The Applicant avers that none of the deceased family members was aware of the proceedings before the city Court, the public auction on 19/12/2013, the issuance of the Vesting Order, or the registration and issuance of the title in the Plaintiff’s name. She asserts that they only became aware of the legal proceedings when they were served with the present eviction proceedings. 11.The deponent contends that the Plaintiff’s assertion that he is a bona fide purchaser for value who acquired valid title fails, as it stems from null proceedings against a deceased person. She further contends that the root of the Plaintiff’s title is impeachable. She refutes the assertion that they slept on their rights for 23 years, averring that they were unaware of the proceedings. She urges the Court to allow the application and to issue the orders sought. Directions on submissions 12.The Court directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. Both parties complied. The Plaintiff/Applicants filed submissions dated 31/10/2025 and 25/11/2025, while the Defendants/Respondents filed submissions dated 6/11/2025. The Court has read and considered the parties' submissions in its determination. Analysis and determination 13.I have considered the application, the responses made, and the rival submissions. I have also looked at the Court record. The issues that commend themselves to me for determination, are:a.Whether this Court ought to grant stay of proceedings in this matter pending the hearing and determination of MCCC No. 1492 of 2018 and Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025b.Whether this suit should be consolidated with Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025c.Who should bear the costs of the application. Whether this Court ought to grant stay of proceedings in this matter pending the hearing and determination of MCCC No. 1492 of 2018 and Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025 14.The law on stay of proceedings is set out in Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that where an issue is directly and substantially in issue in proceedings between the same parties, another Court ought to stay its proceedings in respect of that suit. Stay of proceedings is further referred to in Order 42 Rule 6(1). 15.In the case of Global Tours & Travels Limited; Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000, the Court held as follows;“As I understand the law, whether or not to grant a stay of proceedings or further proceedings on a decree or order appealed from is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice ….. the sole question is whether it is in the interest of justice to order a stay of proceedings and if it is, on what terms it should be granted. In deciding whether to order a stay, the Court should essentially weigh the pros and cons of granting or not granting the order. And in considering those matters, it should bear in mind such factors as the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the prima facie merits of the intended appeal, in the sense of not whether it will probably succeed or not but whether it is an arguable one, the scarcity and optimum utilization of judicial time and whether the application has been brought expeditiously.” 16.The Halsbury’s Law of England 4th Edition Vol. 37 pages 330 and 332 states that;“The stay of proceedings is a serious, grave, and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial on the basis of the substantive merits of his case, and therefore the Court’s general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceeding beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue.”This is a power which, it has been emphasized, ought to be exercised sparingly, and only in exceptional cases.”“It will be exercised where the proceedings are shown to be frivolous, vexatious or harassing or to be manifestly groundless or in which there is clearly no cause of action in law or in equity. The Applicant for a stay on this ground must show not merely that the Plaintiff might not, or probably would not, succeed but that he could not possibly succeed on the basis of the pleading and the facts of the case.” 17.It is therefore clear that, in determining whether to grant an order for a stay of proceedings, the Court must bear in mind the general rule that, once a suit is filed, proceedings ought to continue without interruption until the suit is determined. This rule is grounded in the right of every person to a fair trial, which includes the right to have the trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay, as enshrined in Article 50 (1) of the Constitution, as well as the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, a cardinal principle that guides Courts in the exercise of judicial authority. Against this background, orders for a stay of proceedings ought to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances that demonstrate compelling reasons and that proceeding with the suit would go against all that is deemed just and fair. 18.It is also important to note that stay of proceedings orders are issued at the Court’s discretion, subject to the unfettered powers being exercised judicially, not capriciously or at the whim of the Court. The Court must consider whether it will be in the interests of justice to grant the stay. See the case of Kenya Wildlife Service –vs- James Mutembei [2019] eKLR, where it held that:“…Stay of proceeding should not be confused with stay of execution pending appeal. Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with the right of a litigant to conduct his litigation. It impinges on right of access to justice right to be heard without delay and overall, right to fair trial. Therefore, the test for stay of proceeding is high and stringent…” 19.In the present case, it is not disputed that Nairobi City Council instituted a suit against the late Karanja Roria, vide City Court Case No. 5 of 2013, for payment of levied rates. A judgment in default of appearance was entered on 7/11/2013. Despite the procedural flaw, the 1St Defendant proceeded to conduct a public auction at which the suit property was auctioned to the Plaintiff herein. Pursuant to that auction, the Plaintiff herein then sought Vesting Orders vide the suit ELC 1492 of 2018. The Vesting Order was issued on 11/9/2018, and subsequently the Plaintiff was issued with a Title on 18/7/2024. The Plaintiff, vide the Plaint dated 4/12/2024, seeks to evict the 1st Defendant and her agents, who are beneficiaries of the original owner, the late Karanja Roria. 20.The 1st Defendant contends that the late Karanja Roria died on 2/12/2002, and therefore the suit instituted and the orders issued against him posthumously were a nullity. The 1st Defendant/Applicant has sought to set aside the Vesting order issued in CMCC No. 1492 of 2018. She avers that she lodged Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025 to challenge the decisions and orders that facilitated the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the suit property. 21.I agree with the Applicant that the validity of the orders in the two suits, City Court Case No. 5 of 2013 and CMCC No. 1492 of 2018, is central to the present proceedings. Ownership must be determined before it can be decided whether the 1st Defendant and the beneficiaries of the late Karanja Roria are trespassers on the suit property, thereby warranting their eviction. 22.Under Article 50(1) of the Constitution, every party has the right to be heard, and the Court's fundamental duty is to ensure that parties seeking justice can access justice by affording them that opportunity to be heard. Further, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act confers on the Court inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary to achieve the ends of justice. 23.In my view, the facts and circumstances in this case justify the exercise of this Court’s discretion in favour of the 1st Defendant/Applicant. As demonstrated by the Applicant, proceeding with the instant suit will result in the Applicant’s eviction from the suit property, the ownership of which is in dispute. The prayer for a stay of the proceedings herein is therefore merited. Whether this suit should be consolidated with Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025 24.Having issued the orders of stay of proceedings, and considering that the prayer for consolidation was in the alternative, there is no basis for determining this prayer. 25.Final order for disposala.In the upshot, I allow the application dated 8/4/2026, and order that there be stay of this suit pending hearing and determination of MCCC No. 1492 of 2018b.I decline to consolidate the instant suit with Milimani ELC Appeal No. E009 of 2025.c.Costs of the application shall be in the cause. 26.It is so ordered DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS.J. G. KEMEIJUDGEDelivered Online in the presence of:Mr. Mukoya for the PlaintiffMs. Njoroge for the 1st DefendantMr. Kangongo for the 2nd DefendantN/A for the 3rd DefendantCA- Ms Yvette Njoroge