https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9296
The application failed because the applicants were not within the scope of Order 42 Rule 6: no appeal was pending and no leave to appeal out of time had been sought. In addition, the applicants remained bound by an extant consent order that had not been set aside, so stay could not be used to evade inconvenient...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9296 (KLR)
- Parties
- 1st Applicant: Greatrift Express Shuttle Services; 2nd Applicant: Kipkemboi Kiptai Chesang; Respondent: James Mwangi Githinji
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application E074 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Judges
- ["MN Mwangi"]
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Consent Judgment/orders, Dismissal of Application, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Greatrift Express Shuttle Services
1st Applicant
Kipkemboi Kiptai Chesang
2nd Applicant
James Mwangi Githinji
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether stay of execution could issue in the absence of a pending appeal or an application for leave to appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicants could circumvent a binding consent that had not been set aside by a competent court.
Ratio Decidendi
The application failed because the applicants were not within the scope of Order 42 Rule 6: no appeal was pending and no leave to appeal out of time had been sought. In addition, the applicants remained bound by an extant consent order that had not been set aside, so stay could not be used to evade inconvenient consent terms.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 9.4.2026 is dismissed.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Greatrift Express Shuttle Services & another v Githinji (Miscellaneous Civil Application E074 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 9296 (KLR) (23 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9296 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kiambu Miscellaneous Civil Application E074 of 2026 MN Mwangi, J June 23, 2026 Between Greatrift Express Shuttle Services 1st Applicant Kipkemboi Kiptai Chesang 2nd Applicant and James Mwangi Githinji Respondent Ruling 1.The applicants entered into a binding consent in Limuru Chief Magistrate’s Court, in CMCC NO. E451 of 2022. The said consent has not been set aside by any Court of competent jurisdiction. 2.Orders for stay of execution are granted under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. This application does not fall under that category as there is no appeal pending before this Court or an application for leave to appeal out of time. 3.Orders for stay of execution cannot be sought just because the applicants feel that the terms of the consent entered into are no longer convenient to them, as stay of execution is never granted in a vacuum. 4.The application dated 9.4.2026 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KIAMBU ON THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE PLATFORM.NJOKI MWANGIJUDGEIn the presence of:-Ms Oteyo for the applicantMr. Kangongo for the respondentMs Julia – Court Assistant.