The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by Galot Holdings Limited seeking to stop the hearing of a long-running land dispute pending before the Environment and Land Court (ELC).

In a ruling delivered on Friday, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Gatembu Kairu, Jamila Mohammed, and Aggrey Muchelule found that Galot Holdings had failed to demonstrate that the continuation of the ELC case would render its appeal “nugatory.”

The company had asked the appellate court to stay the proceedings in the Environment and Lands Court, where it is embroiled in a protracted battle with Manchester Outfitters Limited, the late Mohan Galot, and several related parties over ownership of a prime property in Nairobi.

The case dates back more than a decade and stems from family and corporate wrangles among members of the Galot family, who have long controlled the Galot business empire.

Manchester Outfitters Limited, together with Mohan Galot and Galot Limited, claims that the property was irregularly transferred to Galot Holdings by Pravin Galot and Rajesh Galot using company funds without the knowledge or consent of other directors. They alleged fraud and sought a declaration that the property is held in trust for the original companies.

The contested property was initially bought for KSh8 million and later used to secure a loan for Manchester Outfitters. Although the loan was repaid and the charge discharged, the ownership of the land remained contentious, leading to years of litigation across multiple courts.

The ELC had dismissed the suit in 2018 for want of prosecution after years of inactivity. However, on September 19, 2024, Justice Oscar Angote reviewed that decision and reinstated the case for hearing, citing an earlier High Court order that had stayed all matters involving a related dispute over the directorship of Manchester Outfitters.

Galot Holdings contested the ruling, arguing that the case had been conclusively determined and should not be revived. The company claimed the ELC had breached the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of matters already decided, and filed an appeal seeking to stop further proceedings.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the appeal raised arguable points, particularly over whether the ELC had properly applied the review principle of “any other sufficient reason.” However, the judges held that Galot Holdings had not shown that proceeding with the trial would cause irreparable harm or make its appeal pointless.

“The applicant has failed to establish that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the proceedings before the ELC are not stayed,” the bench ruled.

The appellate court noted that the ELC case has never been heard on its merits and that allowing it to proceed would enable a full hearing and determination of the parties’ claims.

The judges added that any decision by the ELC could be appealed later if Galot Holdings was dissatisfied, emphasizing that the appellate process was sufficient protection.

“If the applicant does not succeed before the ELC, it will still come before this Court on appeal. It cannot therefore be argued that if the proceedings are not stayed, the applicant will suffer irreparably,” they said.