https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1051

Mwangi v Rax Company Limited (Civil Application E654 of 2024) [2026] KECA 1051 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1051 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Application E654 of 2024 W Karanja, K M'Inoti & P Nyamweya, JJA May 29, 2026 Between Bilha Wambaire Mwangi Applicant and Rax Company Limited Respondent (Being an application for stay of proceedings at Thika High Court (F. Muchemi, J.) dated 24th October 2024 in HCCC No. E110 of 2024) Ruling 1.Bilha Wambaire Mwangi (the applicant) has moved this Court under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, in the main, for an order of stay of proceedings, crafted as follows:-“…an order of stay of proceedings and/or further proceedings in Thika High Court Civil Appeal No. E110 of 2024…before Hon. Justice F. Muchemi and Ruiru Law Courts Civil Case No. E195 of 2923… before Hon. Joseph Were Chief Magistrate which has been set down for execution by way of notice to show cause dated 6th December 2024 pending hearing and determination of this application.” 2.The grounds on the face of the application indicate that the applicant lodged Civil Appeal No. E110 of 2024 before the High Court at Thika, against the decision of Hon. Joseph Were, Chief Magistrate Ruiru Law Courts, in Civil Case No. E195 of 2023 which found in favour of the respondent herein; and that the applicant is liable to pay Kshs,3,305,015 comprising additional costs of construction of a residential house on LR No. Ruiru/Ruiru/East Block 7/1411. 3.In her appeal, the applicant also sought orders of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The court gave her a conditional stay of execution whereby she was supposed to deposit cash as security in court. Unable to deposit the money, she filed two applications before the High Court seeking review of the terms of the stay orders to allow her offer a bank guarantee instead of cash. The High Court dismissed the two applications vide a joint ruling delivered on 24th October 2024. 4.It is that ruling that the applicant intends to appeal against. In the meantime, she filed this application seeking to stay the proceedings before the courts below. We can state at this early stage that we have no jurisdiction to stay proceedings before a magistrate’s court, and that part of the prayer is, therefore, misplaced. 5.There was no replying affidavit or grounds of opposition filed in response to the application. When the application came up for hearing, learned counsel Mr. Gachau appeared for the applicant. There was no appearance of the respondent, though duly served with the hearing notice. Mr. Gachau also conceded that he had not filed any submissions, nor had counsel for the respondents filed any. Learned counsel just told us to allow the application as the learned Judge was wrong in dismissing their application. Counsel did not address us on the legal foundation of his application, nor did he tell us why he contended that the learned Judge was wrong in dismissing their application. He did not address the Court on the arguability of their appeal or on the nugatory aspect. 6.Counsel treated the application in a very perfunctory and cursory manner. In as much as the application was unopposed, it behooved the applicant to bring the application within the threshold set for applications filed under Rule 5(2)b of the Court of Appeal Rules. This was not done. There is no basis, whatsoever, for us to allow this application. In the circumstances, we find it totally devoid of merit and dismiss it with no order as to costs as it was not defended. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI, THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2026.W. KARANJA......................................JUDGE OF APPEALK. M’INOTI......................................JUDGE OF APPEALP. NYAMWEYA......................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.SignedDEPUTY REGISTRAR.