MICHAEL NDERITU MAGONDU VS JANE NJERI HUNJA AND DANIEL NDEGWA HUNJA AND 1 Others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYERI

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE NO.E016 OF 2022

MICHALE NDERITU MAGONDU………………………………..PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

JANE NJERI HUNJA ……………………………………….1^ST DEFENDANT

DANIEL NDEGWA HUNJA ………………………………2^ND DEFENDANT

R U L I N G

1. Before me is an Application dated 1.4.2025 for Review and/or revision of the orders granting a 4 month stay of execution granted on 21.3.2025.  The same is buttressed by the grounds on the face of the Application and the Affidavit in support thereof sworn on even date by the Applicant. 
2. In a nutshell, the Applicant states that he was never served with the Application dated 20.3.2025 to allow him incite a response thereof and that the orders granted therein are so painful to him for the same have prevented him from the realization of the fruits of his otherwise successful judgment. 
3. He further states that it was not shown that the Respondents stood to suffer substantial loss if the said orders were not granted since they have not been in occupation nor have they been using the land for a period of over 21 years yet it was the Applicant and his family who have been in use of the land since 1974.  The Application was also filed in bad faith in order to defeat and delay the Applicant’s realization of the fruits of his successful judgment. 
4. The Applicant depones that he already has in his possession a Decree which he had commenced registration at the Lands Office.  He depones that he or his Advocate were never served with the impugned Application and that the said Application is incompetent. 
5. The 1^st Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 23.6.2025 on behalf of herself and of her Co-Respondent in which she deponed that she admits that the orders granted on 21.3.2025 were so issued ex parte when the orders of stay were granted for a period of 4 months with effect from the same date i.e 20.7.2025 and were meant to preserve the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the intended Appeal which according to the Respondents has already been commenced vide the Notice of Appeal dated 14.2.2025. 
6. She depones that since the said stay will lapse on 21.3.2025 and the Applicant is on the suit land there is no need of interfering with the said orders and therefore no prejudice would befall the Applicant. 
7. It is indeed true there was an Application dated 20.3.2025 for stay of execution of the judgment dated and delivered on 30.1.2025 which was heard ex parte.  The order was meant to preserve the suit land pending Appeal and the same will lapse on the 21.7.2025 (four months) having been granted on 21.2.2025.  This is only 10 days from the date of this Ruling. 
8. The Applicant having waited for 3 ²/₃ months, asking him to wait for the 10 remaining days is not asking too much of him.  After 21.7.2025 he will have a field day.  I therefore ask him to be a bit patient since he is still occupying the suit land together with his family.  But the costs of this Application shall be to the Applicant.  Orders accordingly.

Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nyeri this 11^th day of July, 2025

MUGO KAMAU

JUDGE