Nkonge & 3 others v Mugambi (Environment and Land Appeal 13 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3559 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling)

Nkonge & 3 others v Mugambi (Environment and Land Appeal 13 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3559 (KLR) (10 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3559 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nanyuki Environment and Land Appeal 13 of 2023 LN Mbugua, J June 10, 2026 Between Timothy Nkonge 1st Appellant Moses Kaimenyi 2nd Appellant Lawrence Koome 3rd Appellant Rose Ngugune 4th Appellant and John Mugambi Respondent Ruling 1.Judgment was delivered in this matter on 24.9.2025 in which the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent. The appellants have filed an amended application dated 11.2.2026 whereby they pray for the following orders;“1.1. THAT this application be certified urgent and service of the same be dispensed with in the first instance.2.That the applicants/appellants herein be granted leave to file contempt proceedings against the respondent who is in deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Honourable court.3.That this application be heard and stay of execution orders of the Lower Court’s judgment/decree dated 9th day of July 2019 be extended ex-parte in the first instance pending inter-partes hearing and determination of this application.4.That there be stay of the aforesaid judgment/decree pending the hearing and determination of the Intended Appeal preferred against this Honourable Court’s judgment/decree dated 24th day of September, 2025.5.That the Honourable Court do order respondent to show cause why he should not be held to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with the court order issued on 24th day of September, 2025.6.That the respondent be committed to civil jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months if found to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with the Honourable Court order issued on 24th day of September, 2025.7.That an order do issue that the respondent raise/construct structures or houses demolished or compensate the appellants/applicants for the damages caused on 9th day of October, 2025 as a result of his omission or commission.8.That the Honourable Court be pleased to make such other orders as the court may deem fit for the best interest of the appellants/applicants.9.That costs of this application be in cause.” 2.The applicants contend that when the judgment of this court was delivered on 24.9.2025, an order for stay of execution was given for 30 days. However on 9.10.2025, the respondent in the company of the police descended on the suit property and demolished the structures thereon including the house of the 1st appellant and has been threatening the appellants with eviction. They contend that their intended appeal will be rendered nugatory if the orders are not granted. 3.No response was filed in respect of the current application. 4.Stay of execution pending appeal is governed by Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The power to grant an application for stay of execution pending appeal is a discretionary one on sufficient cause being shown, where the applicant may suffer substantial loss; the application is made without unreasonable delay and on provision of such security as the Court may impose, See- Selestica Limited v Gold Rock Development Ltd [2015]. 5.The applicant appears to be mixed up on what he wants before this court. At prayer No. 3, he wants a stay of execution of the lower court’s judgment, yet the appeal before this court has been concluded. Secondly, he avers that after the judgment of 24.9.2025, an order for stay of execution was granted for a period of 30 days, but the respondent commenced eviction on 9.10.2025. If indeed this was the position, the logical cause of action was to go back to court immediately. As it were, the appellant filed the current application 5 moths later from the date the judgment was delivered and long after the stay orders had lapsed. Thirdly, the stay of execution orders are ordinarily granted pending another proceeding. In this case, the appellant intimated that they desired to lodge an appeal. Five months down the line from the time the judgment was delivered to the date the application was filed, the applicant has not demonstrated their desire to actualize their intention to appeal. 6.In light of the foregoing analysis, I find that the application of 11.2.2026 is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:C/A – NancyAppellant – Onaya ObereRespondent – Kibuchi - absent