https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12002

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU** **CIVIL APPEL NO. E011 OF 2026** **STEPHEN NTURIBI ETIRIKIA** ………………………..……..……. **1ST APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **MERU TEACHERS HOUSE LTD ………………………………….…RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Coming up for determination is the application dated 03/02/2026 which seeks the following prayers: 2. Spent 3. That this Honourable court be pleased to grant the applicant leave to deposit alternative security to satisfy the orders of the court delivered on 22/01/2026 in Meru HC. Misc. Appl No. E039 of 2025. 4. That the costs of this application be in the cause. 5. The applicant’s case is that judgment in CMCC E014 of 2023 on 17/12/2024. That he filed Meru High Court Misc. Case No. E039 of 2025 which sought stay of execution and leave to appeal out of time. That the court granted stay on condition that he deposits Kshs.500,000/= being half the decretal sum in joint interest earning account in the name of the advocates for the parties. 6. The applicant further avers that he is unable to raise the said amount but has alternative security, namely land whose value is more than the decretal sum. 7. The application was opposed by the respondent. It is deponed that the applicant has not shown plausible reason why he failed to comply with the orders of the court. That he has not demonstrated his inability to pay the said sum. That the security offered will not meet the intended purpose as relying on it will be very cumbersome. That the applicant has not filed a valuation report to show the value of the proposed security. 8. It is not in dispute that in Meru High Court Misc. E039 of 2025, this court ordered a conditional say of execution, the condition being that the applicant deposits Kshs.5000,000/= in a joint account in the name of the advocates. 9. In the said suit, the applicant had indicated that he was ready to abide by any condition that the court deemed fit. 10. Now that the court issued the said condition, the applicant has now come back for a review of the same. 11. I have considered the application. Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act grants this court the power of review. It provides as follows: **Any person who considers himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.** 1. Order 45 Rule 1 provides as follows regarding an application for review: **(1)Any person considering himself aggrieved—** **(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or** **(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.** **(2)A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for the review.** 1. It is settled law that an applicant must meet one or more of the grounds set out therein. For “any other sufficient reason” is a term that is to be read independently and need not be analogous to the other reasons set out. 2. Whereas the applicant has exhibited that he is the registered proprietor of the land that he offers as security, a challenge arises as to how the same can be realized from the perspective of the respondent. 3. How will it be realized to the benefit of the respondent in the event the applicant is unsuccessful on this appeal? 4. I am inclined to agree with the respondent as to unsuitability of the security. 5. Although I have a lot of sympathy for the applicant, his prayer cannot achieve the intended purpose of the security ordered. 6. Therefore, the application is dismissed with costs. 7. The applicant is at liberty to apply to provide an alternative security which can meet the intended purpose. **Dated, signed, and delivered at Meru this 29th day of July 2026.** **H.M. NYAGA** **JUDGE**