[2025] KEHC 5432 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5432 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant satisfied the requirements for stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The applicant demonstrated the risk of substantial loss if execution proceeded, as the respondent did not show ability to refund the decretal sum. The appeal was found to be arguable and not frivolous, based on the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, particularly regarding the quantum of damages for malicious prosecution. The application was filed promptly, and the applicant offered to provide security as directed by the court. Consequently, the court granted a conditional stay of execution, requiring the applicant to...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5432 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Wekesa David; Respondent: Florence Nechesa; Respondent: Norah Khalwali; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal 51 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed, subject to conditions.
Judges
SC Chirchir
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Malicious Prosecution, Security for Decree, Substantial Loss, Appeal Thresholds
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Stay of Execution Malicious Prosecution Security for Decree Substantial Loss Appeal Thresholds

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wekesa David

Appellant

Florence Nechesa

Respondent

Norah Khalwali

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal is arguable and not frivolous.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant satisfied the requirements for stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The applicant demonstrated the risk of substantial loss if execution proceeded, as the respondent did not show ability to refund the decretal sum. The appeal was found to be arguable and not frivolous, based on the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, particularly regarding the quantum of damages for malicious prosecution. The application was filed promptly, and the applicant offered to provide security as directed by the court. Consequently, the court granted a conditional stay of execution, requiring the applicant to...

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed, subject to conditions.

Orders

  • There shall be a stay of execution of the judgment in Butali CMCC No. 57 of 2018, pending the hearing and determination of the present appeal.
  • The stay is conditional upon the applicant depositing KES 200,000 in court within the next 45 days.