[2025] KEELC 5235 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 5235 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to meet the requirements for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal. The application was brought after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, as the appellant had already obtained a conditional stay from the lower court but failed to comply with its terms. The court was not persuaded that the appellant would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, noting that the appellant had alternative land to move to, and his only concern was its insecurity. The court concluded that the appellant had not made a case for the discretionary order sought, and granting the stay would be inequitable and contrary to the rules governing such relief.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 5235 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Silvanus Okoth Ogutu; Respondent: Pia Ogony Opere
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 July 2025
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
SO Okong'o
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Eviction Orders, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Eviction Orders Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Silvanus Okoth Ogutu

Appellant

Pia Ogony Opere

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay was brought without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to meet the requirements for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal. The application was brought after an unreasonable and unexplained delay, as the appellant had already obtained a conditional stay from the lower court but failed to comply with its terms. The court was not persuaded that the appellant would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted, noting that the appellant had alternative land to move to, and his only concern was its insecurity. The court concluded that the appellant had not made a case for the discretionary order sought, and granting the stay would be inequitable and contrary to the rules governing such relief.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant's application dated 11th April 2025 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.