The proposed development could change the property while an appeal was still waiting to be heard. That risk helped justify staying eviction, even though the Court of Appeal was not deciding the competing ownership and forgery allegations.
Karura Investment Limited v Harunani & 2 others [2023] KECA 1505 (KLR) is identified in the retained selection record as a Court of Appeal ruling of 8 December 2023, Civil Application E083 of 2023.
The court stayed execution of the eviction ruling pending the intended appeal. It did not grant a separate stay of further proceedings in the concluded miscellaneous application.
Eviction had been obtained through a miscellaneous application
The dispute concerned a Nairobi property. An amended notice of motion in the ELC sought eviction of Karura Investment and another respondent.
The ELC allowed that request. Karura Investment filed a notice of appeal and sought interim protection in the Court of Appeal.
The company claimed ownership through an earlier transfer and challenged the documents relied upon by the opposing party. Another respondent also disputed an alleged lease signature.
Those were contested allegations. The stay ruling did not finally establish forgery, fraudulent acquisition or ownership merely by repeating them in its background.
The procedure raised an arguable question
One appellate ground questioned whether a substantive dispute determining ownership and possession could properly be commenced through a notice of motion.
The Court of Appeal considered that a genuine issue deserving argument. It did not hold, at the interim stage, that the proposed appeal would necessarily succeed.
Paragraphs 16-17 preserve that distinction. Arguability opened the inquiry into temporary protection; it did not substitute for the later merits hearing.
The exact proceeding being challenged also mattered. An objection concerning another stage of litigation did not automatically dispose of the intended appeal from the eviction ruling.
Development approvals did not resolve the ownership dispute
The opposing party relied on development approvals and argued that obtaining them supported his position. He also said that the practical eviction would involve changing site security rather than demolishing structures.
The court took a different point from the development plans: they showed a risk that the character of the property would change before the appeal was determined.
It considered that risk, including possible transfer to a third party, sufficient to satisfy the nugatory requirement.
The approvals were not treated as a final title adjudication. Nor did the court establish that approved construction had already been completed.
One stay was granted and the other served no purpose
Paragraph 21 stayed execution of the ELC ruling of 9 March 2023 ordering eviction of both Karura Investment and the second respondent, pending hearing and determination of Karura's intended appeal.
The request to stay further proceedings was rejected as pointless because the miscellaneous application had already been determined and nothing remained pending in it.
Costs of the appellate application were to abide the intended appeal.
This distinction prevents two overstatements: that the court had confirmed Karura's ownership, and that every proceeding involving the property had been frozen.
Later litigation must be matched to both parcel and remedy
The retained [2025] KEHC 15857, indexed as dated 6 November 2025, concerned an estate's constitutional petition about subdivision and acquisition of the same parcel.
The High Court dismissed that petition because the dispute belonged within ELC jurisdiction, with no order as to costs. It did not decide the fraud merits or determine the intended appeal from the eviction order.
A separate [2025] KEELC 5279, indexed as dated 10 July 2025, involved overlapping parties but a different parcel. It dismissed the application to strike out a defence, enter judgment and vacate a 20 December 2022 injunction, with costs to the first defendant. Triable issues remained for hearing; the requested discharge was not granted.
Neither ruling can safely be relabelled as the final result of this eviction appeal.
Questions before treating an order as clearance to develop
What exact order is stayed? Which parcel and parties does it cover? Does an approval address planning, or is it being used to imply ownership? Is a later decision about the same parcel, the same remedy and the same appeal?
A Kenyan advocate should compare the instruments and operative orders. Site control, planning approvals and a contested proprietary interest are not interchangeable.
Review ArdhiScore's screening scope and limitations. Screening cannot certify ownership or approvals, stop construction automatically, guarantee complete coverage, or replace an official search and Kenyan legal advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
Independent local review, 11 September 2026: Ezra read the retained original responses in the postwriting cache index, separately from the writer's selected-cache record: principal paragraphs 1-21, petition paragraphs 1-89 including raw-only paragraph 81, and different-parcel paragraphs 1-33. All three sources remain held: formal judicial headers, decision-body dates and signed closings are unavailable; caption-to-party mapping needs confirmation. No network request or fresh later-history search occurred. Neither current title nor the eviction appeal's outcome is established. Access/reuse, privacy/legal and publication approval remain separate.
Read the stay ruling, paragraphs 16-21; the later jurisdiction decision, paragraphs 86-89; and the different-parcel ruling, paragraphs 3 and 24-33.