https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3363

Langton Investments Ltd v Ngumi & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E034 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3363 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3363 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Appeal E034 of 2026 MN Kullow, J June 4, 2026 Between Langton Investments Limited Appellant and Charles Mwangi Ngumi 1st Respondent Nancy Njeri Maina 2nd Respondent Meron Limited 3rd Respondent Ruling Introduction 1.Vide the notice of motion application dated 9th March 2026 the Applicant seek the following orders:a.Spentb.That pending the hearing and determination of this application, there be a stay of all further proceedings in Chief Magistrate's Court ELC Case No. E998 of 2025 Charles Mwangi Ngumi & Nancy Njeri Maina v Meron Limited & Langton Investments Limited.c.Pending the hearing and determination of this appeal, there be a stay of further proceedings in Chief Magistrate's Court ELC Case No. E998 of 2025 Charles Mwangi Ngumi & Nancy Njeri Maina v Meron Limited & Langton Investments Limitedd.Costs of the application be in the appeal. 2.The application was premised on grounds as in the supporting affidavit of David Mucai Kunyiha that via the ruling delivered on 30" January 2026 the Chief Magistrate Court in Chief Magistrate's Court ELC Case No. E998 of 2025 — Charles Mwangi Ngumi & Nancy Njeri Maina v Meron Limited & Langton Investments Limited, dismissed the appellant’s application dated 11th November 2025 to strike out the suit and allowed the respondent’s injunction applications dated 30" October 2025 and 12" November 2025. The appellant is aggrieved by the ruling and has lodged this appeal by filing a memorandum of appeal on 27" February 2026. The appellant states that it has good grounds of appeal with high chances of success as it raises serious issues of law including the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and the effect of the court issuing the orders of injunction allegedly over a non-existent property.The Appellant argued that the appeal will be rendered nugatory unless the proceedings herein are stayed as the court will proceed to hear and determine the suit without jurisdiction and on a non-existing subject matter 3.The 1st and 2nd respondents filed their replying affidavit sworn on the 27th March 2026 by the 1st respondent. He deponed that the application was not warranted as the Appellants arguments were based on a totally different parcel of Land being LR Reference No. 28401 denying any correlation with the suit property subject of the lower court matter being plots No 104 and 158 located on L.R. No. 17665/3. That they were the bona fide owners having been allocated the same by the city council of Nairobi and had been in continuous uninterrupted possession of the same since the year 1997 and had made developments of the same which included establishing residential area for their families. 4.He further deponed in the event the land parcels are one and the same, the appellant’s title over the same has been acquired fraudulently being that the suit property is public land.That the application for stay of proceedings does not satisfy the tripartite test established under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 where no substantial loss has been established, and that the appellant had not offered any security for due performance of a decree. Applicant’s Submissions 5.The applicant reiterated the contents in its application. It was submitted that the question whether or not to order stay of proceedings is a discretionary one that ought to be exercised judiciously. For this proposition, the applicant relied on the case of Global Tours & Travels Ltd Nairobi High Court Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000.The applicant then submitted that the appeal was arguable and has a high chance of success and will be rendered nugatory if the proceedings are not stayed. That the mere fact that it was an arguable appeal, should warrant the stay of proceeding relying on what was stated in the Supreme Court in Kakuzi PLC v Makuyu Club (Suing Through Joel Nyoike, Irungu Ndirangu and S. Kirubi as Trustees of the Club) [2026] KESC 4 (KLR) Respondent’s submissions 6.The respondent argued has not satisfied the test for grant of a stay of proceedings as established under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules being substantial loss that its claim on substantial loss is the vague claim as they simply assert but not proved the same relying on In Kenya Hotel Properties Ltd v City Council of Nairobi & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, the court held that an applicant seeking stay must demonstrate particularized and concrete harm, not merely speculate about a future outcome. That the applicant must also demonstrate that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and that such security as the Court orders for the due performance of such decree has been given.Counsel also submitted and that the prejudice on the respondents will be way more than on the applicant which is a factor the court should look at relying on the case of Kenya Shell Ltd v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & Another [1986] KLR 410,On the appeal being arguable and specifically on the issue of jurisdiction of the magistrate court the respondent argued that since there was a contention on two parcels of land each with a different value, then the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction had not been ascertained and can only be done so in a trial and not through such an application and that a challenge to jurisdiction is not a sufficient basis for a stay of proceedingsThe respondent filed further submissions dated 24th April 2026 insisting that the issues raises are issues that need to go for trial and cannot be the reason for issue of stay of proceedings and the court should outweigh the balance who will be prejudiced more should stay of proceedings orders be issued. Analysis and Determination 7.I have considered the application, the reply as well as rival submissions. In my considered view, the issue that arises for determination isWhether this court ought to grant stay of proceedings in the lower court pending hearing of this appeal.It is not in doubt that this Court has powers to stay proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction reserved in section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial discretion that interferes with a party’s right to be heard and is to be granted only in the clearest of cases. The applicable principles are well-settled. In Global Tours & Travels Limited, Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000 where it was stated that:” The sole question is whether it is in the interest of justice to order a stay of proceedings, considering factors such as the prima facie merits of the intended appeal, the interests of the applicant, the prejudice to the respondent, and the expeditious disposal of cases.”In David Morton Silverstein vs Atsango Chesoni Civil Application No. Nai. 189 of 2001 [2002] 1 KLR 867; [2002] 1 EA 296 the Court of Appeal citing Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd vs Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd & Another Civil Application No NAI 50 of 2001 held that it is not the law that a stay of proceedings cannot be granted but that each case depends on its own facts. In Niazons (Kenya) Ltd. vs China Road & Bridge Corporation (Kenya) Ltd. Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC No. 126 of 1999 it was held that: “Where the appeal may have very serious effects on the entire case so that if stay of proceedings is not granted the result of the appeal may well render the orders made nugatory and render the exercise futile, stay…should be granted.” 8.In the present case, one of the issues raised is the issue of jurisdiction of the lower court. The applicant argues that the value of the subject matter exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction while the respondent argues the suit property the applicant is referring to is not the same as the one on which the injunctive orders were issued. A perusal through the impugned ruling delivered on 30th January 2026, paragraph 4 reads tended that the pecuniary value of the property exceeds this Court’s jurisdiction. “Having looked at the pleadings, the Court observes that the claim is not purely pecuniary; it is based on possession, lawful allocation, and protection of rights in land. Even if the alleged market value of the suit property is high, the Respondents are entitled to seek relief in this Court in respect of equitable and possessory claims”From the above statement, it is my view that the trial magistrate did not handle the issue of jurisdiction as the most important consideration in dispensing the application rather, the issue of the applicant’s claim on the protection on his rights over the suit property which rights the trial court indicated gave the applicant the right to approach the court. There is no indication on the said ruling that the decision on jurisdiction had been arrived at having considered the value of the suit property. 9.I will not go into the merits of the appeal and attempt to determine whether the court had jurisdiction however, the issue of jurisdiction goes into the core of every suit. It is settled that jurisdiction is everything as decided by The Court of Appeal, in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] eKLR, where it was stated:“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdictionBeing that the issue of jurisdiction has been raised as the 1st ground in the memorandum of appeal dated 27th February 2026 ,I agree with the reasoning as in the above cases and find that if this court hold that the lower court had no jurisdiction, the impact of it if stay of proceedings is not granted is that the orders of this court would render any other orders that may result from the trial court in the subsistence of the appeal nugatory and render the exercise futile. 10.In light of my above holding that I find the Appeal raises triable issues, I am satisfied that the interests of justice in this case demand that there be stay of the of proceedings. In the circumstances, the court considers that the failure to stay proceedings will render the appeal nugatory. In the event this court finds that the Trial Court does not have jurisdiction, then the entire proceedings of the court will be rendered a nullity because without jurisdiction, the court acts in vain. Allowing the trial court to proceed under the cloud of a jurisdictional uncertainty undermines the integrity of the process. 11.The applicant has not asked for stay of execution orders since this are very distinct from stay of proceedings, and hence during the pendency of the appeal the respondents will not be prejudiced in any way as the injunctive orders will still be in place until the appeal is heard and determined.Final dispositionFor the foregoing reasons, the Application dated 9th March 2026 has merit and the same is hereby granted in the following terms;a.An order of stay of all further proceedings in Chief Magistrate's Court ELC Case No. E998 of 2025 Charles Mwangi Ngumi & Nancy Njeri Maina Vs Meron Limited & Langton Investments Limited is hereby issued pending hearing and determination of this appeal.b.Costs of the Application to abide the outcome of the Appeal.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.MOHAMMED N. KULLOWJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of: -Mr. Kimani Kiragu for the Appellant/ApplicantMr. Musambaki for the RespondentMr. Ndegwa for Busu for the 2nd RespondentPhilomena W . Court Assistant