https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2930

Elangata-Wuas Group Ranch (Suing Through Its Registered Group Ranch Representatives/Officials) v County Government of Kajiado & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 443A of 2017) [2026] KEELC 2930 (KLR) (13 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2930 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado Environment and Land Case 443A of 2017 MD Mwangi, J May 13, 2026 Between Elangata-Wuas Group Ranch (Suing Through Its Registered Group Ranch Representatives/Officials) Applicant and County Government of Kajiado 1st Respondent County of Kajiado Land Surveyor 2nd Respondent Land Registrar Kajiado 3rd Respondent Ruling Introduction 1.Before this Court for determination is the Notice of Motion Application dated 14th November 2025, brought by the Plaintiff/Applicant, Elangata-Wuas Group Ranch. The Application is anchored on Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, alongside Sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21). The Applicant primarily seeks an order for the stay of proceedings in ELC Case No. 443A of 2017 (OS), pending the hearing and determination of its intended appeal against the ruling of this Court delivered on 9th October 2025. The Applicant also prays that the costs of the application be in the cause. 2.To contextualize the present dispute, the Plaintiff initially instituted this suit via an Originating Summons dated 2nd May 2015. The core of the dispute revolved around the Respondents' alleged unlawful interference with registered community land and unauthorized amendments to the original cadastral map of Kajiado/Elangata-Wuas/1. On 13th May 2024, this Court delivered a Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff. 3.Subsequently, the 1st Defendant successfully applied for a review of that decision. In a ruling delivered on 9th October 2025, this Court set aside the Judgment of 13th May 2024, alongside all consequential orders and decrees, and directed that the matter be heard afresh de novo. Aggrieved by this decision, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on 15th October 2025, intending to challenge the setting aside of the judgment and seeking its reinstatement. It is this intended appeal that precipitates the instant application for a stay of proceedings. 4.The Application is supported by the grounds on its face and an affidavit sworn by Joel Kanchori ole Singeen, the Chairman of the Elangata-Wuas Group Ranch. The Applicant contends that a stay of proceedings is imperative to preserve the substratum of the suit and to ensure that the intended appeal is not rendered nugatory or reduced to a mere academic exercise. 5.The Applicant deposes that the intended appeal raises arguable and serious points of law, particularly regarding the extent of a County Government's powers over registered community land and the legality of amending an original cadastral map without requisite consent. Relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & Another (Petition No. 4 of 2019), the Applicant submits that this Court must acknowledge the hierarchy of the courts and hold its proceedings in abeyance pending the appellate court's determination. The Applicant further avers that the application has been brought promptly, in good faith, and that the balance of convenience dictates that the stay be granted in the interest of justice. 6.The Application is fiercely opposed by the 1st Defendant/Respondent, the County Government of Kajiado, through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 9th February 2026 by Hamilton Parseina, the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for the Ministry of Lands. The 1st Defendant characterizes the application as an abuse of the court process, asserting that it is misconceived and fails to meet the strict legal threshold for a stay of proceedings under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 7.The 1st Defendant contends that a stay of proceedings is a drastic judicial remedy that interferes with the Court's constitutional mandate to determine disputes expeditiously. According to the Respondent, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any substantial loss that would be suffered if the trial de novo were to proceed, and emphasizes that the mere filing of a Notice of Appeal does not automatically warrant a stay. Furthermore, the Respondent highlights that this litigation has been pending since 2015, and granting a stay would unjustifiably stall the proceedings and occasion grave prejudice to both the 1st Defendant and the implicated public interest. 8.The Respondent further avers that the Applicant's claims regarding the appeal being rendered nugatory are speculative and unsubstantiated. Citing the Court of Appeal’s holding in Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei [2019} eKLR, the 1st Defendant argues that exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated to halt proceedings—a burden the Applicant has allegedly failed to discharge. Consequently, the 1st Defendant urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs and allow the matter to proceed to hearing without further delay. Issue for determination 10.Having carefully considered the pleadings, the grounds on the face of the application, and the rival affidavits, the singular issue that crystallizes for the Court’s determination is: Whether the Applicant has satisfied the established legal threshold for the grant of an order for stay of proceedings pending appeal. Analysis and determination 11.The jurisdiction of this Court to grant a stay of proceedings is anchored in Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which states in verbatim:“No appeal or second appeal shall operate as a stay of execution or proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the court appealed from may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the court appealed from may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree." 12.While Order 42 Rule 6 provides the statutory foundation, the specific threshold for staying proceedings (as opposed to execution) is an exercise of judicial discretion. The guiding principles were definitively established by Ringera J. (as he then was) in Global Tours & Travels Limited; Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000, and cited by the 1st Defendant, holding verbatim:“Whether or not to grant a stay of proceedings... is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice. The Court should weigh the pros and cons of granting or not granting the order including the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the prima facie merits of the intended appeal and whether the application has been brought expeditiously." 13.In applying these principles, this Court must first determine if the Applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal. As held by the Court of Appeal in Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui V Tony Ketter & 5 others [2013] KECA 378 (KLR), an arguable appeal is not one that must succeed, but one that raises at least a single bona fide point deserving judicial consideration. However, the Applicant has merely filed a Notice of Appeal. No Draft Memorandum of Appeal was annexed to the application to crystallize the grounds of the intended appeal. Without a drafted memorandum, this Court is invited to halt proceedings based on a speculative and hypothetical appeal. A court of law cannot exercise its discretion in a vacuum. 14.On the second limb—whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay is denied—the Applicant relies heavily on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & Another, Petition No. 4 of 2019. The Applicant quotes the Apex Court verbatim:“We are greatly dismayed that the learned Judge did not take judicial notice of the pendency of this Appeal although he was aware of it. As a matter of fact, he stated so in his judgment that an appeal had been preferred to us against the decision of the Court of Appeal to the apex court on matters whose determination may well have been binding on him. The learned judge ought to have held his horses and acknowledge the hierarchy of the courts and await for this court to pronounce itself before rendering himself, if at all." 15.This reliance is legally misconceived. The Supreme Court's admonition applied to a scenario where an actual appeal was actively pending determination. In the instant case, there is no pending appeal; there is only a notice communicating the intention to appeal. A Notice of Appeal merely signals an intention to approach the appellate court; it is not a substantive judicial process capable of automatically arresting a trial court’s proceedings. 16.Furthermore, I am guided by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Niazsons (K) Ltd v China Road & Bridge Corporation Kenya [2001] KECA 376 (KLR), which firmly established that the mere continuation of proceedings does not necessarily render an appeal nugatory. The Applicant argues that it stands to suffer substantial loss by being compelled to re-litigate its case. This argument fails the threshold of irremediable loss. If the Applicant ultimately succeeds in the Court of Appeal, the appellate court retains the full jurisdiction to quash the de novo proceedings and reinstate the original judgment. Subjection to a re-hearing is a standard rigour of the judicial process, not a legally cognizable prejudice incapable of remedy. 17.Finally, the Court must weigh the overriding objective of civil litigation under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, read together with the constitutional imperative under Article 159(2)(b) that justice shall not be delayed. This suit was instituted in 2015 and has been pending in the corridors of justice for nearly a decade. As affirmed in Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei [2019] KEHC 10478 (KLR), a stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action that interferes with a litigant's right to access justice and must be reserved strictly for exceptional circumstances. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to warrant putting this protracted litigation in indefinite abeyance. 18.For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Applicant has failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating sufficient cause to warrant a stay of proceedings. The application is an unwarranted impediment to the expeditious disposal of this matter. 19.Consequently, I make the following final orders:A.The Plaintiff's/Applicant's Notice of Motion Application dated 14th November 2025 is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.B.The costs of the Application are awarded to the 1st Defendant/Respondent.C.The matter shall proceed for hearing de novo as previously directed.Ordered accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.M.D. MWANGIJUDGEIn the virtual presence of:Mr. Kamau for the Plaintiff/ApplicantN/A by the Defendants/RespondentsCourt Assistant: Alex