Chumba v Ombasa & 2 others (Civil Appeal E017 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5469 (KLR) (28 April 2026) (Ruling)

Chumba v Ombasa & 2 others (Civil Appeal E017 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5469 (KLR) (28 April 2026) (Ruling)

The appeal is incompetent for being filed out of time without leave, and the application for stay fails to meet the mandatory conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2); therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction and cannot grant the orders sought.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5469 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Laura Chumba; 1st Respondent: Beatrice Ombasa; 2nd Respondent: Hilder Seela; 3rd Respondent: Charles Gilisho Kasura
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E017 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Competence, Jurisdiction, Succession Proceedings, Procedural Timelines
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Succession Law Stay of Execution Appeal Competence Jurisdiction Succession Proceedings Procedural Timelines

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laura Chumba

Appellant/applicant

Beatrice Ombasa

1st Respondent

Hilder Seela

2nd Respondent

Charles Gilisho Kasura

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is competent under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
  2. 2 Whether the appeal is properly before the court given its origin from succession proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is incompetent for being filed out of time without leave, and the application for stay fails to meet the mandatory conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2); therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction and cannot grant the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 4th October 2025 dismissed with costs to the Respondents.