https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4028

Massive Investment Ltd v Kaniu (Environment and Land Appeal E009 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4028 (KLR) (7 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4028 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua Environment and Land Appeal E009 of 2026 JM Kamau, J May 7, 2026 Between Massive Investment Limited Appellant and Lydia Nduta Kaniu Respondent Ruling 1.The Appellant’s Motion dated 31/3/2026 under Order 42 Rule 6 and order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Civil procedure Rules seeks for orders that: -1.Spent.2.Spent.3.Spent.4.Spent.5.Spent.6.That Pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal herein, there be a stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree delivered on the 27/2/2026 in Ol-kalou CMELC E018 of 2025.7.Pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal this Court do issue a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent whether by herself, her agents, servants or any third parties from interfering with, wasting, harvesting, selling, alienating leasing or otherwise dealing with the eucalyptus trees on parcel No. 2 on L.R No. 3777/276/1 or the Appellant’s interests therein.8.Costs of the Application be provided.9.Any such further or other orders as the Court may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances. 2.The Appellant based her Application on the grounds that: -a.She was aggrieved by the Judgment delivered on 27/2/2026 in Ol-kalou CMELC E018 of 2025, and has lodged an Appeal raising substantial and arguable grounds.b.The subject matter of the Appeal comprises eucalyptus trees planted by the Applicant on parcel No. 2 on L.R No. 3777/276/1 measuring approximately 108 Acres.c.The Applicant made substantial investments over 13 years in planting and maintaining the said trees for commercial purposes.d.The trial Court has in the past halted attempts by the Respondents when the latter commenced harvesting and selling the said trees and/or engaging third parties in doing so.e.The above orders were to lapse on 11/4/2026 thereby exposing the subject matter to imminent destruction, alienation or to waste and unless the orders are granted the Respondent is likely to resume harvesting and/or disposing of the trees thereby rendering the Appeal nugatory.f.The Applicant would suffer substantial and irreparable loss not compensable by way of damages if the subject matter is destroyed.g.The Application was brought without unreasonable delay and in good faith.h.That it is in the interest of justice that the status quo be preserved pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal. 3.In the affidavit in support of the Application of even date, Mr. John Ndegwa Nderitu, a Director of the Appellant depones that the Judgment of 27/2/2026 dismissed the Appellant’s claim and allowed the Respondent’s Counter-claim of a declaration that the Appellant has no interests in the parcel of land known as parcel No. 2 on L.R number 3777/276/1 after expiry of the lease term and a permanent injunction restraining the Appellant, her agents, employees or servants from entering , remaining, cultivating or interfering with the aforesaid property. Costs of the dismissed Appellant’s suit and that of the Counter-claim was to be borne by the Appellant. He further deponed that prior to the delivery of the Judgment, the Respondent had commenced the harvesting of the trees on the 108 Acres parcel of land belonging to the Respondent and registered in his name but which had been leased out to the Appellant. 4.The trees are a culmination of over 13 years of investment, labour and capital. The Application was made timeously and without unreasonable delay and the Appellant is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court as a pre-requisition to the granting of the stay and that it could be in the interest of justice that the orders sought are granted. 5.In the Replying Affidavit sworn on 17/4/2026, the Respondent, Lydia Nduta Kaniu, deponed that the trial Court had dismissed the Appellant’s suit and allowed her Counter-claim affirming that she had no lawful interest in the said property. She said that the Application was misconceived, bad in law, an abuse of the Court process and intended to unjustly deny her the fruits of her unlawful Judgment and which did not merit the criteria set out in law for stay of execution. She further said that at the expiry of the lease on 30/12/2023 the Appellant ceased to have any legal or equitable interest on parcel No. 2 on L.R No. 3777/276/1. 6.She further deponed that the Appellant did not demonstrate any substantial loss that may arise if the stay of execution is not granted as mere dissatisfaction with Judgment is insufficient and that the alleged loss, if any, is purely commercial in nature and is capable of being quantified and compensated by way of damages. And further that the Appellant had not offered any security for the due performance of the Decree as required by law and as a consequence of this abuse, the Application is fatally defective. She also urged that the Appellant by applying for stay orders is trying to perpetuate her unlawful occupation of the suit property and her lease and tenure. She did not demonstrate that she cannot be adequately compensated by damages. The Respondent deponed that she stood to suffer prejudice if the sought orders are granted because she would be denied the use and enjoyment of her property without any lawful justification. She finally said that the Application was not brought in good faith but that it was calculated at frustrating her and delay justice and that it was in the interest of justice to have the Application dismissed with costs as the suit land was her sole source of livelihood and since 2023, she had not benefitted from it. 7.Having considered the parties’ submissions, I do note that the subject matter of tis Appeal is quantifiable and has no sentimental value nor would the Appeal be rendered nugatory should the Orders sought be denied. 8.I am also alive to the fact that should I give the orders prayed for, I would be using the Court to extend the lease agreed upon by the parties herein which would be quite unfair to the Respondent. 9.On the other hand, these are very hard economic times and the Appellant should not be put to hardships having spent a lot and incurring exorbitantly to plant and tend the trees on the suit land. In the premises, I order that both the Appellant and the Respondent do jointly assess the value of the trees within the next 60 days before which the same should not be harvested. The Appellant should by that time have prepared the Appeal for hearing which should be heard on priority basis. In the meantime, the stay is hereby granted for the next 60 days. And if the outstanding rent is not paid within the next 45 days from the date hereof the stay herein will automatically be lapse even without further recourse to the Court. RULING READ AND DELIVERED AT NYANDARUA THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY 2026.MUGO KAMAUJUDGEIn the Presence of: -Court Assistant: Samson.Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Gichuki Nderitu.Defendant’s Counsel: Ms. Mwangi H/B for Mr. Muli.