Mwangi v Kariuki & another (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4906 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that because the 1st respondent was already occupying the land and judgment had declared ownership in her favour, her enjoyment of that judgment should not be interrupted. However, since the title deed remained in the appellant's name, the court preserved the status quo by prohibiting cancellation or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 4906 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: NANCY WANJA MWANGI; 1st Respondent: MARY WANJA KARIUKI; 2nd Respondent: OTHAYA CHINGA MAHIGA EX-FACO LTD
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal Land Dispute; Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Partially allowed
- Judges
- ["JM Kamau"]
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution Pending Appeal, Substantial Loss, Security for Stay, Title Deed Cancellation, Ownership and Possession of Land, Fruits of Judgment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
NANCY WANJA MWANGI
Appellant
MARY WANJA KARIUKI
1st Respondent
OTHAYA CHINGA MAHIGA EX-FACO LTD
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Land Dispute; Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant had met the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal
- 2 Whether execution should be stayed where the respondent was already in occupation and the lower court had decreed ownership in the respondent's favour
- 3 What protective order should be made regarding the title deed pending appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that because the 1st respondent was already occupying the land and judgment had declared ownership in her favour, her enjoyment of that judgment should not be interrupted. However, since the title deed remained in the appellant's name, the court preserved the status quo by prohibiting cancellation or transfer of the title and ordering its deposit in court within 15 days, failing which the stay would lapse and the land would be transferred to the 1st respondent as decreed by the lower court.
Court Disposition
Partially allowed
Orders
- Stay of execution granted conditionally
- The title deed in the appellant's name shall not be cancelled or transferred by either party
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYANDARUA** **ELCA NO E006 OF 2026** **NANCY WANJA MWANGI...............................................APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **MARY WANJA KARIUKI......................................1ST RESPONDENT** **OTHAYA CHINGA MAHIGA EX-FACO LTD....2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING:** The Appellant’s Application dated 20/11/2025 seeks orders for a stay of execution of the Honourable Evans Hezekiah’ Judgment in Nyahururu MELC No. 80 of 2019 dated 31/10/2025 pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal herein. The Appellant, Nancy Wanja Mwangi was the Plaintiff in the lower court in the Plaint amended on 21/12/2020. She sought for a Declaration that: 1. The Plaintiff (Appellant) is the absolute registered proprietor of L.R No. NYANDARUA/NDARAGWA.URUKU BLOCK 2 (URUKU)/ 188 AND 113. 2. A permanent injunction do issue restraining the Defendant (Respondent) by herself, her servants, agents, children and/or employees from entering, remaining, ploughing, farming, constructing, planting, cutting trees and/or in any way interfering with L.R No. NYANDARUA/NDARAGWA.URUKU BLOCK 2 (URUKU)/188 AND 113 in perpetual. 3. Eviction orders to issue against the Defendant (Respondent) from L.R No. NYANDARUA/NDARAGWA.URUKU BLOCK 2 (URUKU)/188 AND 113. 4. Costs of the suit plus interest. 5. Any other or further relief the Court may deem fit and just to grant. The 1st Defendant (1st Respondent) Mary Wanja Kariuki wife/widow and the administrator of the Estate of Paul Kariuki Mugenda entered appearance and denied the Plaintiff’s (Appellant’s) claim and filed a Counter-claim seeking for:- 1. A Declaration that the Deceased Paul Kariuki Mugenda is the bona fide owner of NYANDARUA/NDARAGWA/URUKU BLOCK 2 (URUKU)/188 and 113 and is entitled to be registered as the absolute proprietor thereof. 2. A Declaration that the 1st Defendant (Appellant) registration as proprietor of L.R No. NYANDARUA/NDARAGWA.URUKU BLOCK 2 (URUKU)/188 AND 113 is unlawful, null and void ab initio and the Court be pleased to order the same to be registered in the names of the Deceased being the bona fide owner. 3. Costs of the Counterclaim and interest thereon at Court rates. The Court rendered its Judgement and declined to allow all the prayers of the Appellant herein but granted the prayers by the 1st Respondent herein with costs of the suit and of the Counter-claim. This is the Judgment the Appellant herein seeks to stay with the grounds that the Appellant is still the registered proprietor of the suit land absolutely and that she was issued with the Title Deeds on 7/2/2018 and 19/2/2018 respectively. In the Judgment these Title Deeds were declared null and void and the same were to be cancelled. An Appeal has been preferred and already filed by the Applicant who pleads that it is only fair and just that the injunction sought be granted. These are the Grounds of the Application both on the face of the Application and in the Affidavit of Nancy Wanja Mwangi, the Applicant herein sworn on 20/11/2025 in support of the said Application. In the Replying Affidavit of the 1st Respondent herein sworn on 10/12/2025, Mary Wanja Kariuki depones that the Appellant is interested in delaying the enjoyment of the 1st Respondent’s fruits of her Judgment and that the Appellant is not in occupation of the suit land since the same is occupied by the 1st Respondent and that therefore no substantial loss or prejudice will be suffered by the Appellant if stay is not granted and that the Appellant is not serious in pursuing the Appeal. She has also not offred to furnish the Court with any security and the Application for stay should therefore be dismissed. I am convinced that if the 1st Respondent has been occupying the suit land and the Court has already decreed the ownership in her favour, the same should not be interrupted. In that regard she should continue enjoying the fruits of her otherwise successful Judgment. But in as far as the Title Deed is in the name of the Appellant, I order that the same should not be cancelled nor transferred to any other party by either party and that the same should be deposited in Court within the next 15 days in default of which the stay granted herein shall lapse and the said land transferred to the 1st Respondent as decreed by the lower Court. Costs of this Application shall be in the cause. Ruling read**, signed and delivered at Nyandarua this 30th Day of July, 2026.** **MUGO KAMAU** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of: -** **Court Assistant: Samson** **Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Waichungo.** **Respondent’s Counsel: Ms. Wahome.** Ms. Rotich for the 2nd Respondent.