A large compensation award can create a dangerous impression of certainty. There may be an identifiable parcel, a public project and a court-ordered sum, yet substantial disagreement about who can claim the money and whether anyone must preserve it.
Exclusive Estates sought to restrain Telkom and Postel from seeking KSh11.4 billion. It also requested joint interest-earning escrow of that sum, or the claimed sixty-acre proportion of Telkom's KSh15 billion award, if the decree was settled before appeal determination. Restoration of an earlier protected position and payment information were also sought. These were requests, not established entitlements.
On 31 July 2026, the Court of Appeal at Nairobi dismissed this pending-appeal motion, not the substantive appeal. The lesson is that a disputed land interest, an arguable appeal and an enforceable preservation order are separate positions.
The title claim and the compensation award were not interchangeable
The dispute concerned L.R. 7656 on Ngong Road in Nairobi. The application and its requested relief appear in paragraphs 1-2 of Exclusive Estates v Telkom and others, [2026] KECA 1653 (KLR).
The Environment and Land Court's 17 July 2023 judgment, [2023] KEELC 19328 (KLR), explains a break in the claimed chain. It found that the sixty acres had not been transferred to Postel and that Postel lacked the interest it purported to pass to Exclusive: paragraphs 144-168 and 186-195.
Paragraph 245 declared Telkom the lawful owner and the Ministry of Sports, Culture and Heritage's entry unlawful. It awarded Telkom alone KSh15 billion against that Ministry, with 14% interest from judgment until payment in full. The printed order specifies neither a per-annum period nor compounding.
Telkom was awarded petition costs against the respondents jointly and/or severally. Exclusive's and Postel's cross-petitions were dismissed with costs to Telkom; Aftraco's petition was dismissed without costs. The whole award was not compensation for Exclusive's claimed sixty-acre share.
Paragraphs 247-249 required Telkom to surrender the title to the Chief Land Registrar within 180 days from judgment for cancellation and reissue to the Ministry, and permitted cancellation on default. They do not state a prior-payment condition. Neither the award nor these directions proves payment, surrender or cancellation actually occurred.
Different applications answered different questions
In the 12 April 2024 ruling, [2024] KEHC 4745 (KLR), paragraphs 35-38 rejected a particular res judicata argument about alleged misconduct. But the High Court still refused the requested cross-examination, investigation and exclusion of counsel, dismissing that motion with costs to Telkom and Aftraco in paragraph 57. Allegations were not converted into criminal findings.
In the 17 January 2025 ruling, [2025] KEHC 862 (KLR), paragraphs 28-31 dismissed the commercial suit as res judicata, with costs to Telkom and Aftraco. That was the decision behind the 2026 preservation application. Reading only the earlier rejection of one objection would miss this different outcome.
An arguable appeal did not secure the money
The Court of Appeal accepted that the proposed appeal was arguable in paragraph 26. It nevertheless found the second requirement unmet: refusal of protection had not been shown to make a successful appeal worthless.
Paragraph 29 explained that success would reinstate the suit for determination, not itself establish Exclusive's entitlement. The court recorded that the public project had already proceeded and considered any ultimately established loss compensable in damages. Exclusive had not demonstrated that Telkom could not satisfy a resulting decree. This was the court's assessment of that application, not a guarantee of eventual recovery.
Paragraph 28 also matters: a negative dismissal order did not automatically remove the court's power to grant an injunction under Rule 5(2)(b). Paragraph 30 addressed the proposed mandatory relief's effects on absent third parties. The motion failed; its costs were to abide the appeal's outcome.
Postel's 24 May 2024 extension ruling, [2024] KECA 588 (KLR), concerned E499/2023, not E755/2023. Paragraph 25 regularised its notice and required filing and service of the appeal within fifteen days of the ruling, or receipt of certified proceedings if outstanding; costs were to abide the appeal. This was neither a merits reversal nor an express stay.
Actual E755/2023 orders remain unlocated, and the earlier CA135/2013 caveat decision has not been independently read here. This account does not establish continuous appellate history, the caveat's continuing force, payment or current enforceability.
Check the claim before relying on the payout
For a buyer or lender, the practical enquiry is specific: whose award is it, what supports the claimed share, which proceedings remain relevant, and what actual order controls payment or dealings? A reference to litigation is not a substitute for that dated sequence.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits to ask which parcel identifiers, available evidence and source questions can be recorded in a dated assessment. Keep compensation entitlement and current orders with an advocate and the responsible authorities. Screening cannot impose an escrow, authenticate the register or guarantee that every relevant order will be found.