The Court of Appeal has declined to stop the implementation of a judgment that revoked Riverbank Plaza Limited’s ownership of a disputed parcel of land in Nairobi, allowing the cancellation of the company’s title to proceed pending the hearing of its appeal.
In a decision rendered by Justices W. Karanja, Ali-Aroni and L. Njuguna, the appellate court dismissed an application seeking a stay of execution of a judgment issued by the Environment and Land Court (ELC) on February 5, 2026. The ELC had declared Riverbank Plaza Limited’s title invalid and directed that the property revert to the City Council of Nairobi.
At the centre of the dispute is a parcel of land that was allocated to the City Council in 1972 through a presidential grant for the establishment of a public library. Court records indicate that the land was reserved for public use and remained under the control of the local authority for many years. The property was later transferred to Riverbank Plaza Limited in 1993 following approvals by the Nairobi Plot Allocation Committee, resulting in the issuance of a title deed in the company’s name. The City Council challenged that transfer, maintaining that the land was never available for allocation to private entities because it had been set aside for a public purpose.
In the February judgment, the Environment and Land Court agreed with the council’s position and found that the land remained public property. Justice Kemei ruled that the registration of Riverbank Plaza Limited as proprietor was unlawful and ordered that the title be cancelled and ownership restored to the City Council.
Riverbank Plaza subsequently moved to the Court of Appeal, arguing that enforcement of the judgment before the appeal is determined would effectively deprive it of the property and undermine its case. The company contended that its intended appeal raised substantial legal questions, including whether the cancellation of its title was lawful and whether it qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any irregularities.
It further argued that failure to grant a stay would render the appeal worthless because the title would already have been cancelled. The appellate court, however, held that although the proposed appeal was arguable, the company had not demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable consequences if the stay was denied.
According to the judges, any prejudice arising from the cancellation of the title could be remedied if the appeal succeeds, including through correction of the land register under the provisions of the Land Registration Act.
The court also observed that compensation through damages remained available where appropriate.
“Any damage that may arise from the judgment is reversible by order of court,” the bench stated, adding that statutory mechanisms exist for correcting the land register.
The judges reiterated that applications for stay under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules must satisfy two conditions: the appeal must be arguable, and the applicant must show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if interim relief is not granted.
While Riverbank Plaza met the first requirement, the court found that it failed to satisfy the second.
The ruling adds to a growing body of decisions scrutinising historical allocations of public land, particularly where property reserved for public use later found its way into private ownership.
As a result of the decision, the City Council of Nairobi is free to enforce the Environment and Land Court judgment, including cancellation of the disputed title, unless further orders are obtained during the appeal process.
The court directed that the costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.
