[2025] KEHC 9431 (KLR)
The court found that the judgment sought to be stayed merely dismissed the suit with costs and did not issue any eviction orders. The decree arising from the judgment was not capable of execution except for recovery of costs, and there was no evidence of imminent execution or threat of eviction. The applicant failed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 9431 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael Odera Otom (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Otom Agullo); Defendant: Commissioner of Lands; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: Kisumu Teachers’ Sacco Limited (KITE); Defendant: Kisumu County Government; Defendant: National Land Commission
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 747 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- E Asati
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Pending, Judgment Enforcement, Eviction Risk
- 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
Michael Odera Otom (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Otom Agullo)
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Lands
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Kisumu Teachers’ Sacco Limited (KITE)
Defendant
Kisumu County Government
Defendant
National Land Commission
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for grant of stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
- 2 Whether there is evidence of imminent execution or eviction that would render the appeal nugatory.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the judgment sought to be stayed merely dismissed the suit with costs and did not issue any eviction orders. The decree arising from the judgment was not capable of execution except for recovery of costs, and there was no evidence of imminent execution or threat of eviction. The applicant failed to demonstrate the grounds required for the grant of a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, the application for stay of execution pending appeal was declined.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of execution pending appeal is declined.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Otom (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Otom Agullo) v Commissioner of Lands & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 747 of 2015) [2025] KEHC 9431 (KLR) (2 July 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 9431 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Environment & Land Case 747 of 2015
E Asati, J
July 2, 2025
Between
Michael Odera Otom
Plaintiff
Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Otom Agullo
and
The Commissioner of Lands
1st Defendant
The Attorney General
2nd Defendant
Kisumu Teachers’ Sacco Limited (KITE)
3rd Defendant
Kisumu County Government
4th Defendant
National Land Commission
5th Defendant
Ruling
1. The Notice of Motion application dated 29th May, 2025 brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 8, Order 42 Rule 6(1), (2) and Order 51 Rule1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeks for an order of stay of execution and/or enforcement of the judgement of this court delivered on 8th May, 2025 pending hearing and determination of an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
2. The grounds of the appeal are partly that unless the orders sought are granted, the appeal will be rendered nugatory and that the Plaintiff is likely to be evicted from the only place he has known as his home for years thereby rendering immense prejudice to the Applicant.
3. The application was supported by the averment in the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the Applicant on 29th May, 2025 and the annextures thereto.
4. The application was opposed by the 3rd Defendant vide Grounds of Opposition dated 11th June 2025.
5. I have considered the application and the grounds of opposition advanced. The judgement whose execute is sought to be stayed only dismissed the suit with costs. No eviction orders were issued in the judgement.
6. The decree emanating from the judgement will therefore not be capable of execution save for recovery of costs. There is no evidence of imminent execution. The grounds for grant of an order of stay of execution of judgement have not been demonstrated.Application is declined. No orders as to costs.Orders accordingly.
RULING, DATED AND SIGNED AT KISUMU, READ VIRTUALLY THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION.E. ASATI,JUDGE.In the presence of:Maureen: Court Assistant.Omollo Achieng for the Plaintiff/ApplicantNo appearance for the Defendant/Respondent