Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani and Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha, (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) have come to this court with application dated 19.11.2025 against Ann Waithera Gitiba and Duncan Kamau Mwangi (hereinafter referred to as respondents) seeking orders that the honorable court be pleased to order for stay of execution of the reviewed decree herein and all the consequential orders thereto pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal from the decree herein to the Court of Appeal and that such orders be made as is just and expedient in the interest of justice. Lastly, that the costs of this application be provided for.
The application is based on grounds that the applicants herein, being aggrieved by the ruling of the honorable court delivered on the 14th day of November, 2025 have proffered an appeal, having issued a notice of appeal dated 18th day of November, 2025, against the said ruling. The said intended appeal raises serious, weighty and triable issues of both fact and law and has high chances of success hence ought to be facilitated by stay of execution.
The applicants believe that the subject appeal stands a good chance of success and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay of execution of the judgment/decree is not ordered pending its hearing and subsequent determination and that unless the orders sought herein are granted, the respondents will shortly proceed to execute the reviewed decree which now incorporates eviction orders subjecting the applicants to substantial and irreparable loss including imminent eviction from their homes and rendering the intended appeal nugatory.
The applicants are willing to provide such security as the honorable court orders for due performance of such decree or order as may be ultimately binding on them. That no prejudice or difficulty will be suffered by the respondents herein that cannot be compensated by costs if this application is allowed. That the instant application has been brought in good faith and without undue delay. That it is in the interest of justice that this application be allowed and the Honorable Court has the requisite jurisdiction and discretion to grant the prayers sought thereby. Ultimately that this honorable court is clothed with wide discretion to grant the orders sought.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani, who states that the ruling in the cause was delivered on the 14th day of November, 2025 allowing the Respondent's Application for review of the decree herein dated the 26th day of May, 2025 wherein orders of vacant possession within 90 days were issued against the applicants in respect to all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 failure of which an order of eviction stands to be issued.
The applicants believe that the intended appeal raises serious, weighty and arguable issues on the basis that the respondent has obtained the titles to the suit parcels of land illegally and that the honorable court's failure to consider that crucial fact was an error of law and fact.
The applicants are apprehensive that the respondents may, at any time and before hearing and determination of the intended appeal, commence execution of the subject ruling and consequently evict and/or restrain them from accessing the suit property rendering the subject appeal nugatory and inconsequential, notwithstanding that we have a legal and valid proprietary interest in the suit parcel of land. According to the applicants, no prejudice or difficulty will be suffered by the respondent that cannot be compensated by way of costs if this application is allowed. The applicants are ready and willing to provide such security as this honorable court orders for the due performance of such decree and as may ultimately be binding on them. The instant application has been brought with alacrity and without undue delay, a clear demonstration that they are not out there to delay the cause of justice but rather to ensure the same is accurately served. This honorable court is clothed with wide discretion to grant the orders sought.
Loise Wambui Kahenya filed a replying affidavit stating that that the application is misconceived, frivolous, vexatious, oppressive and a serious abuse of the process of this Honourable Court which ought to be dismissed with costs.
The respondent contends that the Applicants have been in illegal occupation and benefited from my parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme 217 and Nakuru/Bahati 329 for several years, and should not be permitted to perpetuate the illegality.
The Application is intended merely to frustrate and delay his enjoyment of the lawful orders granted by the Court, without any reasonable justification. The Applicants stand to suffer no loss should the Application be dismissed, as they are not the legal owners of the suit properties and have their own properties that is to say, while Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani owns Parcel No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme 213 as it obtained during the trial, Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha owns Parcel No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme 209. On the other hand, the respondent continues to suffer irreparably since he has been deprived of possession of his properties for a prolonged period of time, occasioned by the Applicants' illegal occupation of the same.
The orders of eviction, vacant possession, removal of cautions, and permanent injunction do not constitute substantial loss to the Applicants, following the dismissal of their suit and the success of his suit as reinforced by the Ruling of this Honourable Court.
The Applicants have not demonstrated any genuine intention to appeal against the Ruling, and no Notice of Appeal has been served as required within 7 days upon filing, neither have they sought for proceedings and hence do not deserve the orders sought.
That no Notice of Appointment of Advocates had been filed for the 2nd Defendant nor served by the Advocates for the Applicants, and therefore there is no nexus between the 2nd Defendant and the said Advocates thereby excluding the 2nd Defendant from the Application.
That Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani has not been authorized by any of the parties to swear the Affidavit on their behalf and therefore the other purported Applicants are not parties to the Application.
The Applicants have not met the threshold for grant of the orders sought for and the Application should be dismissed with costs. That it is in the interest of justice that the matter be brought to finality to allow the respondent enjoy the fruits of the Judgment.
I have considered the applicants submissions and evidence on record and do find that the applicants are in possession of the suit properties and have developed the same. The applicants have annexed photographs of permanent structures on the land that show the presence of people on the ground. Moreover, the court is able tosee the cows and sheep on the ground. I do find that there is need to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
On security, I do find that the applicants have been in occupation of the premises for a long period of time and will continue being in occupation until the appeal is heard and determined. This is a period of time that the respondent should be enjoying the fruits of judgment but will not be able to do so because of the orders of this court. I have considered the above and give orders that the applicants deposits security of Kshs1,000,000/= in a joint interest earning account of the advocates on record in a reputable bank. Costs of the application in the appeal.
Orders accordingly.
The application is based on grounds that the applicants herein, being aggrieved by the ruling of the honorable court delivered on the 14th day of November, 2025 have proffered an appeal, having issued a notice of appeal dated 18th day of November, 2025, against the said ruling. The said intended appeal raises serious, weighty and triable issues of both fact and law and has high chances of success hence ought to be facilitated by stay of execution.
The applicants believe that the subject appeal stands a good chance of success and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay of execution of the judgment/decree is not ordered pending its hearing and subsequent determination and that unless the orders sought herein are granted, the respondents will shortly proceed to execute the reviewed decree which now incorporates eviction orders subjecting the applicants to substantial and irreparable loss including imminent eviction from their homes and rendering the intended appeal nugatory.
The applicants are willing to provide such security as the honorable court orders for due performance of such decree or order as may be ultimately binding on them. That no prejudice or difficulty will be suffered by the respondents herein that cannot be compensated by costs if this application is allowed. That the instant application has been brought in good faith and without undue delay. That it is in the interest of justice that this application be allowed and the Honorable Court has the requisite jurisdiction and discretion to grant the prayers sought thereby. Ultimately that this honorable court is clothed with wide discretion to grant the orders sought.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani, who states that the ruling in the cause was delivered on the 14th day of November, 2025 allowing the Respondent's Application for review of the decree herein dated the 26th day of May, 2025 wherein orders of vacant possession within 90 days were issued against the applicants in respect to all those parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme/217 and Nakuru/Bahati/329 failure of which an order of eviction stands to be issued.
The applicants believe that the intended appeal raises serious, weighty and arguable issues on the basis that the respondent has obtained the titles to the suit parcels of land illegally and that the honorable court's failure to consider that crucial fact was an error of law and fact.
The applicants are apprehensive that the respondents may, at any time and before hearing and determination of the intended appeal, commence execution of the subject ruling and consequently evict and/or restrain them from accessing the suit property rendering the subject appeal nugatory and inconsequential, notwithstanding that we have a legal and valid proprietary interest in the suit parcel of land. According to the applicants, no prejudice or difficulty will be suffered by the respondent that cannot be compensated by way of costs if this application is allowed. The applicants are ready and willing to provide such security as this honorable court orders for the due performance of such decree and as may ultimately be binding on them. The instant application has been brought with alacrity and without undue delay, a clear demonstration that they are not out there to delay the cause of justice but rather to ensure the same is accurately served. This honorable court is clothed with wide discretion to grant the orders sought.
Loise Wambui Kahenya filed a replying affidavit stating that that the application is misconceived, frivolous, vexatious, oppressive and a serious abuse of the process of this Honourable Court which ought to be dismissed with costs.
The respondent contends that the Applicants have been in illegal occupation and benefited from my parcels of land known as Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme 217 and Nakuru/Bahati 329 for several years, and should not be permitted to perpetuate the illegality.
The Application is intended merely to frustrate and delay his enjoyment of the lawful orders granted by the Court, without any reasonable justification. The Applicants stand to suffer no loss should the Application be dismissed, as they are not the legal owners of the suit properties and have their own properties that is to say, while Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani owns Parcel No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme 213 as it obtained during the trial, Sybella Wanjiku Gitiha owns Parcel No. Nakuru/Bahati/Settlement Scheme 209. On the other hand, the respondent continues to suffer irreparably since he has been deprived of possession of his properties for a prolonged period of time, occasioned by the Applicants' illegal occupation of the same.
The orders of eviction, vacant possession, removal of cautions, and permanent injunction do not constitute substantial loss to the Applicants, following the dismissal of their suit and the success of his suit as reinforced by the Ruling of this Honourable Court.
The Applicants have not demonstrated any genuine intention to appeal against the Ruling, and no Notice of Appeal has been served as required within 7 days upon filing, neither have they sought for proceedings and hence do not deserve the orders sought.
That no Notice of Appointment of Advocates had been filed for the 2nd Defendant nor served by the Advocates for the Applicants, and therefore there is no nexus between the 2nd Defendant and the said Advocates thereby excluding the 2nd Defendant from the Application.
That Dorothy Nyokabi Kimani has not been authorized by any of the parties to swear the Affidavit on their behalf and therefore the other purported Applicants are not parties to the Application.
The Applicants have not met the threshold for grant of the orders sought for and the Application should be dismissed with costs. That it is in the interest of justice that the matter be brought to finality to allow the respondent enjoy the fruits of the Judgment.
I have considered the applicants submissions and evidence on record and do find that the applicants are in possession of the suit properties and have developed the same. The applicants have annexed photographs of permanent structures on the land that show the presence of people on the ground. Moreover, the court is able tosee the cows and sheep on the ground. I do find that there is need to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
On security, I do find that the applicants have been in occupation of the premises for a long period of time and will continue being in occupation until the appeal is heard and determined. This is a period of time that the respondent should be enjoying the fruits of judgment but will not be able to do so because of the orders of this court. I have considered the above and give orders that the applicants deposits security of Kshs1,000,000/= in a joint interest earning account of the advocates on record in a reputable bank. Costs of the application in the appeal.
Orders accordingly.