“There is an appeal” is not the same as “the case has stopped.” For an owner or adviser following land litigation, that difference matters: a challenge may deserve a hearing without justifying a pause in the proceedings it challenges.
In Nova Realty Group Limited v Tom Brown Limited and others, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Application No. NAI E708 of 2025, ruling dated 26 June 2026, the Court refused a stay of Environment and Land Court proceedings. It dismissed the motion with costs to the first and second respondents. This was a procedural ruling, not a decision on title or planning merits. (PDF page 7, paragraph 15.)
What Nova Realty wanted paused
The application arose from Nairobi ELC Petition E053 of 2022. According to the appellate ruling, the ELC judge declined to recuse himself on 23 October 2025. Nova Realty lodged a notice of appeal against that refusal, then brought a motion dated 25 November 2025 seeking to stop the proceedings while pursuing its intended appeal. The lower ruling is recounted here, not independently examined. (Pages 1–2, paragraph 1.)
Nova Realty argued that the judge had failed to apply the objective test for reasonable apprehension of bias. It also contended that allowing the same judge to continue would undermine the intended appeal. These were the applicant's arguments, not findings that bias had occurred. The appellate Court considered the submissions; the first and second respondents' late replying affidavit was withdrawn. (Pages 2–3, paragraphs 2–5.)
Two requirements, not one
The Court first distinguished a stay of proceedings from a stay of execution. Even if the refusal to recuse was a negative order, that did not prevent a justified application to pause the ongoing case. The question was whether a pause was deserved, not simply how the earlier order was labelled. (Pages 3–4, paragraph 6.)
Under rule 5(2)(b), the applicant needed both an arguable appeal and a showing that refusing a stay would render that appeal nugatory: effectively deprive it of practical value. The Court emphasised that stopping proceedings is exceptional because it interferes with the other parties' opportunity to be heard without delay. (Pages 4–5, paragraphs 7–9.)
Nova Realty met the low arguability threshold. Its contention about the objective bias test was not frivolous. But an arguable ground only merits further consideration; it does not establish that the appeal will succeed. (Page 5, paragraph 10.)
Why proceedings were not stopped
The remaining hurdle was decisive. The Court said that merely pointing out that the same judge would continue could not suffice; otherwise every comparable recusal challenge would require a stay. On the material before it, the Court found no demonstrated probability supporting the asserted bias, nor an identified irreversible consequence or extremely onerous hardship that an appeal could not remedy. (Pages 5–7, paragraphs 11–14.)
That was an assessment for this interlocutory application. The Court expressly left open what the applicant might establish at the main appeal. Refusing a stay therefore should not be reported as finally rejecting the intended appeal or resolving the underlying land dispute.
What to record in a property file
Separate the challenge filed, the relief requested and the order actually made. Here, no stay was granted. The ruling does not identify a parcel or its county; Nairobi is the court station, not verified property location. Later proceedings and present property status have not been checked.
See how ArdhiScore works: parcel intelligence can organise available court, gazette and field evidence to support due diligence. Availability and coverage vary. It cannot certify clean title, guarantee prevention of loss or replace official checks and qualified legal advice; it does not imply access to bank or registry systems.