[2025] KEELC 3971 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 3971 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the application was filed with unreasonable delay, the appellant did not demonstrate substantial loss beyond...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 3971 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Mbari Gitau; Respondent: Kennedy Ndungu Nyambura
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 May 2025
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E049 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
JA Mogeni
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Adverse Possession, Eviction Orders, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Adverse Possession Eviction Orders Security for Due Performance

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mbari Gitau

Appellant

Kennedy Ndungu Nyambura

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the application was filed with unreasonable delay, the appellant did not demonstrate substantial loss beyond ordinary consequences of judgment, and no security for due performance was offered. The court emphasized that all three conditions—substantial loss, prompt application, and provision of security—are cumulative and must be met. The appellant's allegations of threats were unsupported by evidence, and the respondent's actions were in accordance with a lawful court order. Consequently,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion Application dated 25/01/2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.