https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1041

Meeli & another v Kimani & 4 others (Civil Application E298 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1041 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1041 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Application E298 of 2025 J Mohammed, DK Musinga & M Ngugi, JJA May 29, 2026 Between Bishop Moses Meeli 1st Applicant Timothy Kiipaapa Meeli 2nd Applicant and Peter Mungai Kimani 1st Respondent Elizabeth Wanjiku (As administrator of the Estate of John Duncan Mbichi - Deceased) 2nd Respondent Henry Moore Kipkurui Arap Lasoi 3rd Respondent Barclays Bank Of Kenya Limited 4th Respondent The Registrar-Kajiado Land Registry 5th Respondent (Being an application for injunction and stay of proceedings arising from the ruling and order of the Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Kajiado (Komingoi, J.) dated 24th April 2025 in ELC Case No. 108 of 2017) Ruling 1.The applicants’ notice of motion dated 14th May 2025 seeks an injunction to restrain the respondents from dealing with a property known as Kajiado/Lorngusua/109 (the suit property) “pending an appeal from the ruling and order made by the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado on 24th April 2025 in ELC Case No. 108 of 2017”. The applicants also seek stay of proceedings of that case pending hearing and determination of an intended appeal. 2.The brief background to the application is that the 1st and 2nd respondents filed the aforesaid suit against the applicants, stating that they lawfully purchased the suit property through a public auction conducted by the 4th respondent in exercise of its statutory power of sale, and were issued with a title, but the applicants had entered the suit property and interfered with their possession and denied them access thereto. 3.The applicants challenged the said suit and filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim, alleging that there was fraud in the transaction that led to the sale of the suit property by public auction. They argued that their father was the original owner of the suit property, and his interest had been unlawfully transferred through fraudulent dealings by third parties, thereby rendering the subsequent charge of the suit property to the 4th respondent, its sale and transfer to the 1st and 2nd respondents invalid. They sought nullification of the transfers, rectification of the register, and damages. 4.In its judgment dated 14th March 2024, the trial court found in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents, and dismissed the applicants’ counterclaim. The court also permanently injuncted the applicants from interfering with the suit property. 5.Subsequent to the delivery of the judgment, the applicants did not file any notice of appeal against the judgment, and have not done so to date. On the other hand, on 27th November 2024, the 1st respondent moved the trial court for orders of contempt of court against the 1st applicant by way of committal to civil jail or imposition of a fine for disobedience of the trial court’s orders, and further sought enforcement of the permanent injunction, including police assistance, and eviction of the 1st applicant from the suit property. He argued that despite the aforesaid judgment, the 1st applicant continued to deal with the suit property unlawfully, including constructing thereon and attempting to sell it. 6.On their part, the applicants filed an application dated 13th January 2025 seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 14th March 2024 and all the consequential orders thereunder. They also urged the court to set aside the judgment, arguing that it was delivered without notice to them or their advocates. 7.On 24th April 2025, the trial court delivered a ruling in respect of the two applications. The court dismissed the applicants’ application and allowed that of the 1st respondent. The court held that the applicants had wilfully disobeyed the court order and ordered them to purge the contempt within 30 days, failing which they would be liable to a fine of Kshs. 200,000, or in default, imprisonment for 6 months. The applicants did not purge the contempt but instead filed a notice of appeal dated 28th April 2025, evincing their intention to challenge the ruling delivered on 24th April 2025. 8.In respect of the application now before us, the applicants contend that their intended appeal is arguable, and that unless the orders sought are granted, the appeal will be rendered nugatory. 9.The application is opposed by the 1st and 2nd respondents. They argue that the intended appeal is a nullity and is not arguable because the applicants had not filed any notice of appeal against the judgment. 10.At the hearing of this application, the applicants were represented by Mr. Ngaira while the 2nd respondent was represented by Mr. Randol. There was no appearance on behalf of the other respondents despite service of a hearing notice upon them. 11.When the Court asked the applicants’ counsel whether there was any notice of appeal from the judgment of 14th March 2024, counsel conceded that no notice of appeal was ever filed. He, however, pointed us to the notice of appeal dated 28th April 2025 in respect of the impugned ruling of 25th April 2025. 12.It is trite law that in an application under rule 5(2)(b) of this Court’s Rules, if a notice of appeal has not been filed, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant an order for stay of execution, injunction or stay of proceedings. In Equity Bank Limited vs West Link Mbo Limited (Civil Application No. 78 of 2011) [2013] KECA 320 (KLR) (Civ) (31 May 2013) (Ruling), this Court cited the decision in Interim Independent Electoral Commission and Anor vs Paul Waweru Mwangi [2011] eKLR, where it was held:“We have said, times without number, that it is the notice of appeal which, for purposes of rule 5(2)(b) of the Court Rules, gives this Court jurisdiction to hear and determine an application under the rule.”See also Mureithi & 32 Others vs Law Society of Kenya & Anor (Civil Application No. 12 of 2015) [2016] KESC 13 (KLR) (16 March 2016) (Ruling). 13.It is only when a notice of appeal has been filed that this Court assumes original and discretionary jurisdiction to grant an appropriate order under rule 5(2)(b). If the judgment that gave rise to the contempt proceedings has not been challenged, an intended appeal against the subsequent orders of 24th April 2025 cannot stand, and the Court is bereft of jurisdiction to grant the orders sought. 14.In the absence of jurisdiction, this Court must therefore down its tools. In the celebrated decision of the Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lillian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 at page 14, Nyarangi, JA. held:“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to take one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending the evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.” 15.In view of the foregoing, this application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026.D. K. MUSINGA (PRESIDENT).....................................JUDGE OF APPEALJAMILA MOHAMMED.....................................JUDGE OF APPEALMUMBI NGUGI.....................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDeputy Registrar