Family of late PS Oyugi get reprieve as court blocks sale of Lavington property

Late ex-PS Hezekiah Oyugi/COURTESY

The family of the late Moi-era Permanent Secretary Hezekiah Nelson Oyugi has secured a temporary reprieve after the Court of Appeal of Kenya blocked the sale or disposal of a prime Lavington property pending the hearing and determination of an appeal.

In a ruling delivered in Nairobi on February 13, 2026, the appellate court granted an injunction restraining a businesswoman from transferring, selling, or otherwise interfering with the disputed parcel.

"Accordingly, we hereby grant an injunction restraining the 1st respondent (Sherman) from transferring or otherwise disposing of the suit property pending hearing and determination of the applicants’ appeal," the bench ruled.

The judges held that the subject matter of the appeal ought to be preserved to avoid rendering the intended appeal nugatory (of no value.)

The applicants — Job Okuna Oyugi, Douglas Odhiambo Oyugi and Joshua Onyango — had moved to court in their capacity as administrators of Oyugi’s estate.

They challenged a July 10, 2025 judgment of the Environment and Land Court (ELC) that dismissed their long-running suit over the property.

Court documents show that the ELC had found that a constructive trust arose in favour of Sherman, citing her payment of the full purchase price, prolonged possession and subsequent registration of the land in her name.

Dissatisfied with that outcome, the family filed an appeal and sought urgent interim relief under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, arguing that they had raised arguable issues deserving appellate consideration. 

One of the grounds raised questions the trial court’s reliance on constructive trust in determining the dispute, an issue the applicants (family) contend did not arise from the pleadings. 

In opposing the application, Sherman maintained that the intended appeal was not arguable and, in any event, would not be rendered nugatory because the applicants could be compensated by damages if the property were disposed of. 

She pointed out that the land was purchased for an ascertainable amount and that rental income from the premises is held in a joint account between advocates for both sides.

"The gist of her averments that is of relevance to this application is her contention that the applicants do not have an arguable appeal, and that even if they do, it will not be rendered nugatory, as the applicants have not demonstrated that even if the property is sold during the pendency of the appeal, they cannot be compensated in damages," the ruling states.

The appellate court was, however, not persuaded.

While acknowledging that damages can sometimes suffice, the judges noted that Sherman had not demonstrated her ability to compensate the estate should the property be sold before the appeal is concluded and the appeal later succeeds. 

Given the nature of the dispute and the high value attached to the land — estimated by the applicants at hundreds of millions of shillings — the court found that preservation was necessary.

“The applicants’ intended appeal raises arguable issues that merit consideration,” the court said, adding that the balance of justice favoured maintaining the status quo until the appeal is heard.

However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings at the ELC, holding that any post-judgment processes ongoing in the superior court would not, on their own, render the appeal nugatory. 

Costs of the application will depend on the outcome of the appeal.