Macharia v Kariuki & another (Environment and Land Appeal E012 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3718 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling)

Macharia v Kariuki & another (Environment and Land Appeal E012 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3718 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling)

The applicant failed to demonstrate what injury or prejudice would be suffered if the orders were not granted, and the court would not fill the evidential gaps. The parties also addressed the merits of the appeal rather than the interlocutory criteria. On that basis, the application for injunction and stay of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEELC 3718 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Milliamu Nyakiragu Macharia; 1st Respondent: Edward Macharia Kariuki; 2nd Respondent: Joseph Kanyukii Kairu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E012 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
["JM Kamau"]
Legal Topics
Injunction Pending Appeal, Stay of Execution, Matrimonial Property Claim, Sale of Land, Caution Over Land, Burden of Proof in Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Land Law Civil Procedure Environment and Land Law Family Law Injunction Pending Appeal Stay of Execution Matrimonial Property Claim Sale of Land +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milliamu Nyakiragu Macharia

Appellant

Edward Macharia Kariuki

1st Respondent

Joseph Kanyukii Kairu

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a basis for temporary injunction pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a basis for stay of execution pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant showed the injury or prejudice likely to be suffered if the orders were declined

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate what injury or prejudice would be suffered if the orders were not granted, and the court would not fill the evidential gaps. The parties also addressed the merits of the appeal rather than the interlocutory criteria. On that basis, the application for injunction and stay of execution was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application dated 15/4/2026 is disallowed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.