By Andrew Kariuki
The Court of Appeal sitting in Mombasa has dismissed an application seeking to suspend court orders and halt proceedings in a long-running land dispute over parcel L.R. No. MN/11/783 in Kikambala, Kilifi County.
In a ruling delivered on December 19, 2025, Justices Agnes Murgor, K. I. Laibuta and Ngenye-Macharia rejected an application by nine applicants who had sought a stay of execution, stay of proceedings, and injunctive orders pending an intended appeal against a ruling of the Environment and Land Court in Malindi.
The applicants had asked the appellate court to block the implementation of orders issued on March 26, 2025, which allowed the family of the late Kea Rimba Gona to access and use a portion of the disputed land measuring approximately 2.4 acres, pending the determination of consolidated suits before the trial court.
They argued that the land belonged to them, that the deceased had only been a caretaker and that allowing access to the property risked irreversible acts such as occupation, development or burial, which would render their intended appeal nugatory.
The respondents opposed the application, stating that the family had long occupied the disputed portion, had permanent homesteads there, and that the applicants had defied existing court orders by fencing off the land and denying access.
They further argued that the applicants were seeking to delay the hearing of the main suit through repeated interlocutory applications.
In its analysis, the Court of Appeal applied the established test under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which requires an applicant to demonstrate both that the intended appeal is arguable and that failure to grant the orders sought would render the appeal nugatory.
While the court found that the intended appeal raised arguable issues worthy of consideration, it held that the applicants had failed to satisfy the second limb of the test.
The judges ruled that granting the family access to the 2.4-acre portion did not dispossess the applicants of the land or permit irreversible actions that would destroy the subject matter of the appeal.
The court observed that the trial court’s orders were limited to access and did not authorise alienation, sale, development or demolition of the property.
It therefore found no basis to conclude that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the orders remained in force.
As a result, the court dismissed the Notice of Motion dated April 4, 2025, with costs, clearing the way for the Environment and Land Court to proceed with the hearing of the consolidated suits on their merits.
