A challenge to cancellation of a title does not automatically suspend the decree being challenged. For someone assessing a property transaction, "there is an appeal" leaves an important question unanswered: has a court actually stopped the relevant order from taking effect?
In Riverbank Plaza Limited v City Council of Nairobi, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Application No. NAI. E061 of 2026, ruling dated 12 June 2026, the applicant obtained recognition that its intended appeal was arguable, but not a stay of execution. The court dismissed its motion, with costs in the appeal. It considered the register changes reversible and damages available if the appeal succeeded. (Paragraphs 11-13.)
A registration challenged at its origin
The application arose from a judgment delivered on 5 February 2026 in ELC Case No. 1958 of 2007. The company said it had acquired the disputed property from the respondent through a transfer registered on 8 March 1993. Its account was that the land had been identified for commercial development and an allocation application approved. (Paragraphs 1-2.)
The respondent disputed that account. It alleged fraud, illegality and breach of trust, maintaining that the land had been granted to it in 1972 to hold for a public library. These were the respondent's allegations; the appellate ruling should not be read as a criminal conviction or a separate finding against every person involved in the transaction. (Paragraph 2.)
As recounted in this ruling, the trial court found the land unavailable for alienation because it was held in a fiduciary capacity for a public purpose. It declared the company's registration illegal, null and void, and ordered cancellation and return to the respondent. That is the lower court's determination described by the appellate court, not a fresh final decision of the intended appeal. (Paragraph 3.)
Why an arguable challenge was insufficient
The company sought interim protection under rule 5(2)(b), arguing that execution would cost it the property and render its appeal nugatory. It challenged the findings about public land, enforceable interests and cancellation of its title. The Court of Appeal accepted that those grounds were arguable: they deserved consideration, without necessarily being destined to succeed. (Paragraphs 4-5 and 7-11.)
A second requirement remained. The company also had to show that, without a stay, a later successful appeal would be rendered nugatory. The court asked whether the threatened action could be reversed and, if not, whether damages could reasonably compensate the affected party. (Paragraphs 10 and 12.)
On this record, the court considered damage arising from the judgment reversible through a court order rectifying the register under section 80 of the Land Registration Act. It added that compensation by damages would be available if the appeal succeeded. The motion therefore failed on the second limb despite passing the arguability test. Costs were left in the appeal, rather than awarded immediately to the respondent in this ruling. (Paragraphs 12-13.)
What a transaction review still needs
The useful distinction is between the merits challenge and the order's present procedural status. An arguable appeal is not a finding of valid title. Equally, this refusal of a stay was not the final appellate resolution of the company's challenge. The account does not establish whether registry changes subsequently occurred or how the appeal progressed.
For a buyer, lender or adviser, the practical task is to reconcile the title history with the actual decree, any interim protection and later orders, rather than relying on a general assurance that litigation continues.
See how ArdhiScore works with parcel intelligence from available court, gazette and field evidence. Coverage varies, and this intelligence does not guarantee clean title or prevention of loss. It supports further questions and professional review; it is not a substitute for official checks or evidence of access to bank or registry systems.