https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4889
The court held that the respondent's response largely attacked the merits of the appeal, which was outside the court's role at the stay stage. Because further dealing with the suit property would create complications and potentially prejudice the intended appeal, the court granted limited preservation orders: the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 4889 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Peter Kania Macharia; 1st Respondent: Margaret Kariuki; 2nd Respondent: Peter Njoroge
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal 17 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal; Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Application
- Outcome
- Application substantially allowed with preservation and vacation orders
- Judges
- ["JM Kamau"]
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution Pending Appeal, Transfer of Land Pending Appeal, Eviction, Notice of Appeal, Preservation of Subject Matter, Execution Pending Appeal
- 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
Peter Kania Macharia
Appellant
Margaret Kariuki
1st Respondent
Peter Njoroge
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal; Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted stay of execution pending the intended appeal
- 2 Whether the respondent's arguments attacked the merits of the appeal rather than the stay application
- 3 What protective orders were necessary to preserve the subject matter pending appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the respondent's response largely attacked the merits of the appeal, which was outside the court's role at the stay stage. Because further dealing with the suit property would create complications and potentially prejudice the intended appeal, the court granted limited preservation orders: the title, once transferred into the respondent's name, was not to change hands further pending the appeal, and the appellant was ordered to vacate the premises within 90 days.
Court Disposition
Application substantially allowed with preservation and vacation orders
Orders
- The title deed to L.R. No. Nyandarua/Karati/2457, once transferred into the respondent's name, shall not change hands further until hearing and determination of the intended appeal in the Court of Appeal.
- The appellant shall vacate the suit premises within 90 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYANDARUA** **ELCA NO 17 OF 2023** **PETER KANIA MACHARIA.............................................APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **MARGARET KARIUKI.....................................................1ST RESPONDENT** **PETER NJOROGE...........................................................2ND RESPONDENT** **RULING** In the stay of execution Application dated 7/5/2026, first the firm of Nyawira Mureithi & Co Advocates seeks for leave to act for the Defendants/Applicants herein and secondly, that this Court do issue an order staying the execution of the Judgment of this Court read on 30/4/2026 pending hearing and determination of the Appeal lodged. The import of the said Judgment was to allow the Applicants’ parcel of land L.R No. NYANDARUA/KARATI/2457 to be taken over by the Respondent which would result into eviction of the Applicant and that unless execution of the Judgment is stayed, the intended Appeal would be rendered nugatory The Applicants are ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed on the stay by this Court. A Notice of Appeal has already been filed dated 5/5/2026. The Judgment of 7/5/2026 upset the Nyahururu Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court’s Decision of Honourable S.N. Mwangi dated the 16/9/2022 in Nyahururu MCELC No. 306 of 2018. The firm of Nyawira Mureithi was allowed to come on record on 28/5/2026. The Appellant filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 9/6/2026 opposing the Application for stay of execution. Peter Kaina Macharia deponed that the Application is incompetent, misconceived and bad in law solely aimed at delaying the enjoyment of the fruits of his successful litigation and which ought to be struck out forthwith. The same is incurably defective and an abuse of the Court process and that since the Applicant lacked legal capacity to file the original suit they equally lack capacity to prosecute an Application for stay of execution. He says that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Respondent. I have considered the Application, the Replying Affidavit and Counsel’s submissions and wish to observe that the Respondent in the Application has mainly concentrated his response on the merit or otherwise of the Appeal which is not within my domain at all. As to the Applicant’s Application, I do agree with the Applicant that should the subject matter of the suit be disposed of, it would cause complications later and especially if the Appellant succeeds on Appeal. But as to being evicted, the same can always be reversed should the Applicant be successful on Appeal. I therefore hereby order that the Title Deed to the suit property once transferred in the name of the Respondent should not change hands further until the Hearing and determination of the intended Appeal in the Court of Appeal. Further, the Appellant in this Appeal do vacate the suit premises within the next 90 days from the date hereof. Ruling read**, signed and delivered at Nyandarua this 29th Day of July, 2026.** **MUGO KAMAU** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of: -** **Court Assistant: Samson** **Appellant’s Counsel: Ms. Mwikuyu.** **Respondent’s Counsel: Ms. Nyawira Mureithi.**