Three leasehold parcels supporting Caxton House were said to have been amalgamated while renewal was being pursued. The litigation produced more than one judgment and more than one preservation application. Reading a single refusal of stay as the end of every restraint would miss the later court's express direction.
Keibukwo Investments Limited & another v Sayani Investments Limited & 3 others [2023] KECA 1676 (KLR) is identified in the retained selection record as a Court of Appeal ruling of 15 December 2023, Civil Application E273 of 2023.
The court dismissed the application with costs to Sayani. It did not finally determine the proposed title appeal.
Renewal and amalgamation were part of the contested history
Sayani's leasehold interests in the three parcels were approaching expiry when renewal was sought. The record describes discovery of a purported amalgamation under a disputed deed plan and a title issued to the applicants.
Judicial-review proceedings followed. The ELC quashed the deed plan in its 18 April 2023 judgment.
The applicants sought to stay that judgment and restrain cancellation while they appealed. They questioned jurisdiction, the power to cancel a deed plan and the scope of judicial review.
The ELC's reported findings of illegality were background to this interim application. They were not freshly tried and finally decided by the Court of Appeal in the stay ruling.
An arguable appeal did not establish a need for this stay
The Court of Appeal accepted that the applicants had non-frivolous questions to argue.
But it found the second requirement unfulfilled. There was an indication that the disputed deed plan and associated title had already been cancelled, making the proposed restraint ineffective. It also considered the quashing order reversible if the appeal succeeded.
Paragraphs 12-14 therefore explain why arguability did not produce protection.
The court's reference to an indication of completed cancellation should not be rewritten as a current official registry search. This article has no independent evidence of today's register.
The 2023 order was confined to that application
The application of 19 June 2023 was dismissed with costs to the first respondent, Sayani.
That refusal did not automatically answer what should happen to preservation orders made in connection with an earlier judgment. The two sets of proceedings needed to be identified separately.
Nor did it declare the applicants' proposed appeal withdrawn or determine every allegation about how the amalgamated title arose.
A conclusion about one requested stay should not be expanded into a blanket statement that the property can be dealt with freely.
A later application sought to end the earlier appeal route
The retained [2025] KECA 305, indexed as dated 21 February 2025, concerned the notice of appeal dated 12 February 2021 against the 4 February 2021 judgment, not the separate April 2023 deed-plan judgment. Sayani sought to have that notice deemed withdrawn and the associated preservation orders lifted.
The court accepted evidence of notification on 17 July 2023 and a certificate of delay dated 24 July 2023 recording 885 days, which had not been formally challenged. These are the record's findings, not a recalculated filing deadline.
It found no basis to deem the notice withdrawn. It also recorded that Civil Appeal E772 of 2023 had been filed.
That was a procedural finding about the steps in the appeal, not a new merits award of the land.
Preservation continued despite the earlier stay refusal
The later court directed that the preservation orders remain in force pending hearing and determination of Civil Appeal E772 of 2023. They included restraint against Sayani, its directors, servants or agents selling, charging or otherwise disposing of interests in the three properties. It made no order as to costs.
The source alternates between 1 April 2021 and 1 April 2022 for those orders and contains inconsistent deadline arithmetic and request dates. Do not calculate a filing deadline from this narrative; those discrepancies remain unresolved.
The reliable distinction is the operative one: the December 2023 application failed, while the February 2025 court did not withdraw the earlier notice or terminate the associated preservation.
Neither ruling establishes the final merits outcome or later implementation.
Questions when several orders affect one property
Which judgment does each notice of appeal challenge? Does the requested stay concern cancellation, possession or further dealings? What does the certificate of delay establish? Which operative order expressly keeps preservation in force?
A Kenyan advocate should read the separate applications and orders together. The words “stay dismissed” are not enough to identify every restraint on a property.
Review ArdhiScore's screening scope and limitations. Screening cannot reinstate a deed plan, preserve an appeal deadline, certify title or guarantee complete coverage. Official records and qualified Kenyan advice remain separate.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
Independent local review, 11 September 2026: Ezra read the retained original responses in the postwriting cache index, distinct from the writer's selected-cache record: principal paragraphs 1-14 and related paragraphs 1-26, including orders. Both sources remain held: judicial headers, decision-body dates and signed closings are missing, and chronology conflicts persist. No network request or fresh later-history search occurred. No current enforcement, registry position or substantive outcome in Civil Appeal E772 of 2023 is established. Access/reuse, privacy/legal and publication approval remain separate.
Read the 2023 ruling, paragraphs 1-14; and the later ruling, paragraphs 19-26.