https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/293

Getangita v Sandoka & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E051 of 2025) [2026] KEMC 293 (KLR) (8 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 293 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Kehancha Law Courts Environment and Land Case E051 of 2025 JP Nandi, SPM June 8, 2026 Between Sarah Getangita Plaintiff and Jones Sandoka 1st Defendant Jones Magoiga 2nd Defendant Moseti Nyaisawa 3rd Defendant Chacha Magoko 4th Defendant Registered Trustees of MaranathaFaith Assembly 5th Defendant Paul Monanka 6th Defendant Jackson Mbusiro 7th Defendant Ruling 1.The defendants filed notice of motion dated 11th June 2026 seeking for the following orders:1)That the proceedings herein be stayed pending the hearing and determination of revocation in Kehancha SPM Succession Cause No. E021 OF 2024.2)That the costs of this application be in the cause. 2.The application is based on the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of Jackson Mbusiro sworn on 11th June, 2026. The grounds are that the plaintiff herein obtained title LR. No. Nyabasi/busonga/2019 through Kehancha SPM Succession Cause No. E021 of 2024 and having the certificate of Confirmation of grant in her name as evidenced by annexure marked JM-2. That the subject matter of the suit concerns property belonging to the estate of the late John Chacha Singira (deceased). That the applicants are liability to the estate of the deceased. That the applicants have challenged the grant in Kehancha SPM Succession Cause No. E021 of 2024 as the same was fraudulently obtained without disclosing some material facts, as evidenced by annexure marked JM-3. 3.That there is likelihood that the Grant of Letters of Administration may be revoked. That if the same is revoked, title herein obtained by the plaintiff shall be revoked also. That proceeding with the present suit before the succession proceedings are concluded may result in conflicting decisions by courts of concurrent jurisdiction. That it is in the interest of justice, judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings that this suit be stayed pending the determination of the succession proceedings. That the application has been made in good faith and in the interests of justice. 4.The plaintiff filed a replying affidavit sworn on 16th June 2026 in opposing the application. The grounds are that the applicants are on a phishing expedition since the revocation of grant under section 76, the major ground upon which they premise the instant application, is not automatic. That the grounds upon which the application is premised are not sufficient to warrant halting of the ongoing proceedings which is already at its tail end and the applicants are only interested in causing unnecessary delays and/or frustrating the case by deploying short-cuts to stall lawful hearing of the land case. 5.That the grant remains legally valid under section 76 until formally annulled and cannot be an excuse to halt the proceedings herein. That the confirmed certificate of grant gives the plaintiff full legal authority to deal with the demised property and until section 78 thresholds are met or proven in the succession cause, the proceedings herein should not be stayed. That the success process, the ground for this application, and land disputes operate on different legal regime and as such should not be used to disturb or freeze an active property claim such as this suit being that the plaintiff was properly vested at the time of the filing of this suit. 6.That the application is merely an afterthought and usual delaying tactics meant to frustrate the plaintiff from claiming the property. That this court is clothed with exclusive jurisdiction over land ownership disputes and third party purchasers for value are matters to be tried substantively in the Environment and Land Court such as this court. That the application is misconceived, premature and an abuse of the court process and the same should be dismissed with costs to the respondent. 7.The application was directed to be canvassed by way of written submissions. Applicants Submissions 8.The applicants counsel submitted that the ownership and legal capacity upon which the present trespass claim is founded is directly dependent on the outcome of the pending revocation proceedings. Unless the succession dispute is first determined, there is a real likelihood of this Honourable Court rendering a decision that may subsequently be rendered nugatory or inconsistent with the determination of the Succession Court. That the law is settled that stay of proceedings is a discretionary remedy granted where the interests of justice demand that a matter be held in abeyance pending determination of another suit whose outcome is likely to have a direct bearing on the issues before the court. 9.Counsel submitted that the applicants are challenging the validity of that grant through a summons for revocation of grant pending before the succession cause. That should the grant be revoked, the legal basis upon which the plaintiff’s claims title to the suit property may cease to exist. Consequently, any determination made by this court before the succession dispute is resolved risks being rendered an academic exercise. 10.Counsel for the applicants in supporting his submissions relied on the following cases;a)In Benson Mathu Wakaba & 2 others v Doris Kigetu Maingi (2022) eKLR, the court stayed an ELC matter pending determination of an application for revocation of grant is succession cause, holding that the ownership issues before the court were intertwined with the succession proceedings and that the interests of justice required the succession dispute be determined first.b)The same position was adopted in the case of Samoei & another v Melly & 3 others (2023) KEELC 20339 (KLR) where the court granted a stay because the plaintiff’s title was derived from a grant that was under challenge in succession proceedings. The court found that allowing both matters to proceed simultaneously would expose the parties to conflicting decisions.c)In Roseline Chepkerich v Priscila Jemutai Murei & 2 others (2018) eKLR, the court held that stay of proceedings serves the purpose of avoiding a situation where different courts issue conflicting decisions concerning the same subject matter. 11.The respondent did not file any submissions as at the time of writing this ruling on 2/7/2026. DeterminationThe main issue for determination is whether the applicants have met the threshold for grant of stay of proceedings. 12.In determining this issue I will start by looking at what the superior courts have held when faced with such applications for guidance in resolving the issue at hand. 13.In re Estate of Teresia Jemaiyo Bitok (Deceased) (Probate & Administration 11 of 2021) [2024] KEHC 8819 (KLR) (17 July 2024) (Ruling) the court held that“….that stay of proceedings is a matter of judicial discretion which is normally exercised in the interest of justice taking into consideration the need for expeditious disposal of cases, whether the Applicant has an arguable case and whether the application has been brought expeditiously.” 14.Regarding stay of proceedings, it is trite law that when faced with an Application of such nature, the Court is required to exercise its discretion but which discretion must be exercised after due consideration of the merits of the case and the likely effect on the ends of justice. As usual, exercise of discretion must be grounded on judicious principles. 15.On this issue, Hon. Justice Ringera J(as he then was) in the case of Global Tours & Travels Limited, Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000 held as follows:“As I understand the law, whether or not to grant a stay of proceedings or further proceedings on a decree or order appealed from is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice …… the sole question is whether it is in the interest of justice to order a stay of proceedings and if it is so, on what terms it should be granted. In deciding whether to order a stay, the Court should essentially weigh the pros and cons of granting or not granting the order. And in considering those matters, it should bear in mind such factors as the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the prima facie merits of the intended appeal, in the sense of not whether it will probably succeed or not but whether it is an arguable one, the scarcity and optimum utilization of judicial time and whether the application has been brought expeditiously.” 16.The requirement for the Court to judiciously exercise its discretion when considering an Application to stay proceedings was reiterated by Hon. F. Gikonyo J in the case of Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei [2019] eKLR, that:-“Stay of proceeding should not be confused with stay of execution pending appeal. Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with the right of a litigant to conduct his litigation. It impinges on right of access to justice, right to be heard without delay and overall, right to fair trial. Therefore, the test for stay of proceeding is high and stringent”. 17.Further, in Halbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition Vol 37 page 330, the Learned authors state that: -“The stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial on the basis of the substantive merits of his case, and therefore the court’s general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceeding beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue.” 18.In line with the foregoing guidelines, it is generally agreed that in an Application for grant of stay of proceedings, the matters that the Court must satisfy itself on are the following:a)That the applicant has established a prima facie arguable case;b)That the application was filed expeditiously; andc)That the applicant has established sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the court that it is in the interest of justice to grant the orders sought. 19.The chain of authorities above clearly demonstrates the seriousness and nature of the orders being sought by the Applicant. Stay of proceedings directly has an impact on the nature of the courts business which is the daily dispensation of justice in a timely and efficient manner. In dispensing justice, courts have a timeline within which matters ought to be heard and concluded in order to save time and resources. It is only under certain circumstances which I will term special, that a court can stay proceedings. 20.Regarding “prima facie arguable case”, it is settled that in Applications of this nature, an “arguable case” need only raise a single bona fide point worthy of consideration and that it need not be one that must necessarily succeed (see Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance of Finance Union (Kenya) [2015] eKLR. In this case, I find that the issues raised by the applicants before the Succession Court are not such that can be termed as frivolous. They are very arguable and capable of success. The applicants have sought to challenge the root of the plaintiff’s title in the succession case and the outcome therein has a direct bearing in our instant case. 21.In Kyambuthi v Kiambuthi & 2 others; Kiambuthi (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 786 of 2015) [2024] KEELC 6868 (KLR) (17 October 2024) (Ruling) OA Angote, J rendered himself as follows;“However, it is undisputed the registration of the property in the names of the Interested Party was pursuant to a grant of probate issued in the Estate of the late Reuben Jones Kyambuthi. It is this grant that the Plaintiff seeks to have revoked in the Succession Court and one of the properties she seeks to have the Succession Court re-distributed.It is therefore apparent that the question of the proprietorship of portion B of Dagoretti/Kinoo/2828 is a live issue in both Courts and there is a great danger of conflict should both Courts simultaneously undertake a determination of the same. In any event, it is only the Succession Court that can determine the extent of the deceased’s estate and the legitimacy of the claims by the Plaintiff as an heir and beneficiary of the estate. As expressed by the Court in In Re Estate of Alice Mumbua Mutua (Deceased) [2017] eKLR:“…..The Law of Succession Act, and the Rules made thereunder, are designed in such a way that they confer jurisdiction to the probate court with respect to determining the assets of the deceased, the survivors of the deceased and the persons with beneficial interest, and finally distribution of the assets amongst the survivors and the persons beneficially interested. The function of the probate court in the circumstances would be to facilitate collection and preservation of the estate, identification of survivors and beneficiaries, and distribution of the assets.”Disputes of course do arise in the process. The provisions of the Law of Succession Act and the Probate and Administration Rules are tailored for resolution of disputes between the personal representatives of the deceased and the survivors, beneficiaries and dependants.” 22.Guided by the above authorities I find that the applicants have established they a prima facie arguable case. It is therefore apparent that the question of the proprietorship of portion of LR. No. Nyabasi/busonga/2019 originally known as LR. No.nyabasi/busonga/320 is a live issue in both Courts and there is a great danger of conflict should both Courts simultaneously undertake a determination of the same. 23.What remains to be answered is whether the Succession cause has a bearing on the suit herein. I do see that the succession cause has a bearing on this matter since, if the grant is nullified or not, that will have a significant effect on the respondent’s title to the suit property. Her registration as proprietor of the land was made pursuant to the grant in issue. 24.I find that the application was filed expeditiously and in good faith as it will assist the court in not rendering two conflicting decisions regarding the suit. The same is not a delaying tactic as averred by the respondent. The applicants have also been able to establish that there is sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the court that it is in the interest of justice to grant the orders sought. 25.In conclusion I find that the applicants have been able to meet the thresholds for granting the orders sought and hereby issue the following orders:1)That the proceedings herein be and are hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of revocation in Kehancha SPM Succession Cause No. E021 OF 2024.3)That the costs of this application be in the cause. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT KEHANCHA ON THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 VIRTUALLY VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS.J.P. NANDISENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATEIn the presence of:Mr. Enock…….Court AssistantPlaintiff………..absentDefendants………absentAdvocate for Plaintiffs……..Mr. Achola presentAdvocate for defendant……Mr. Owino present