[2025] KEHC 6192 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6192 (KLR)

The court found that the 2nd Respondent failed to meet the threshold for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was filed over five years after the impugned judgment, and the explanation for the delay—attributing it to the COVID-19 pandemic and difficulties in obtaining proceedings—was unpersuasive given the availability of virtual court operations and electronic filings during the relevant period. The 2nd Respondent did not provide credible evidence of substantial loss that would result if stay was not granted, nor did he offer or deposit any formal security for due performance of the decree. The court emphasized that a mere undertaking...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6192 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Bhatti Panel Beaters Limited; Respondent: Muchangi Nduati Ngingo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 April 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal 584 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the Appellant.
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Delay in Appeal, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, Appellate Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Delay in Appeal Security for Due Performance Substantial Loss Appellate Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhatti Panel Beaters Limited

Appellant

Muchangi Nduati Ngingo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Respondent has met the threshold for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in pursuing the intended appeal affects the viability of the stay application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd Respondent failed to meet the threshold for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was filed over five years after the impugned judgment, and the explanation for the delay—attributing it to the COVID-19 pandemic and difficulties in obtaining proceedings—was unpersuasive given the availability of virtual court operations and electronic filings during the relevant period. The 2nd Respondent did not provide credible evidence of substantial loss that would result if stay was not granted, nor did he offer or deposit any formal security for due performance of the decree. The court emphasized that a mere undertaking...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the Appellant.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated February 27, 2025 is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • The 2nd Respondent shall bear the Appellant’s costs of this application.