https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1444
The applicant’s material on urgency was unopposed after proper service and compliance directions, so the court accepted it as true, found the application urgent, reviewed and set aside the earlier refusal to certify urgency, and directed that the application be heard inter partes urgently.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KECA 1444 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jeremiah Odiwuor Opiyo; Respondent: Dennis Francis Odhialo
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application E056 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Injunction, Stay of Execution and Status Quo Ante; Review of Refusal to Certify Urgency
- Outcome
- Application certified urgent; earlier refusal set aside
- Judges
- ["MS Asike-Makhandia"]
- Legal Topics
- Urgency Certification, Inter Partes Hearing, Stay of Execution, Injunction, Status Quo Ante, Review of Administrative Order, Rule 49(5) Court of Appeal Rules
- 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
Jeremiah Odiwuor Opiyo
Applicant
Dennis Francis Odhialo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Injunction, Stay of Execution and Status Quo Ante; Review of Refusal to Certify Urgency
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application disclosed sufficient urgency to warrant certification as urgent
- 2 Whether the earlier refusal to certify the application urgent should be reviewed and set aside
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant’s material on urgency was unopposed after proper service and compliance directions, so the court accepted it as true, found the application urgent, reviewed and set aside the earlier refusal to certify urgency, and directed that the application be heard inter partes urgently.
Court Disposition
Application certified urgent; earlier refusal set aside
Orders
- The earlier order refusing to certify the application urgent is reviewed and set aside.
- The application is certified urgent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Opiyo v Odhialo (Civil Application E056 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1444 (KLR) (15 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1444 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Kisumu Civil Application E056 of 2026 MS Asike-Makhandia, JA July 15, 2026 Between Jeremiah Odiwuor Opiyo Applicant and Dennis Francis Odhialo Respondent ((Being an application for injunction, stay of execution and status quo ante) Ruling 1.Jeremiah Odiwuor Opiyo, “the applicant”, filed an application dated 17th March, 2026, seeking orders of injunction, stay of execution and status quo ante regarding the suit property. The application was lodged under certificate of urgency. As required by our practice Rules, the application was placed before me as the duty judge on the same day for certification. Upon considering the application, I declined to certify it as urgent. This order was communicated to the applicant. 2.Aggrieved by the order, the applicant sought by a letter dated 26th June, 2026, to have the application heard interpartes limited to the question of urgency. This was pursuant to Rule 49(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules. 3.Again, the letter was placed before me and I directed the Deputy Registrar of this Court to list the application for an interpartes hearing on the question of urgency. I further directed that the question will be canvassed by way of written submissions only and without appearance of counsel or parties in Court or virtually through Video Link. 4.Pursuant to those directions, only the applicant has complied by filing his written submissions. Despite evidence of service of the application as well as the above directions by the Court on the respondent, he has not complied by either filing an affidavit or written submissions to date. 5.Accordingly, I will take it that what the applicant has averred and deponed to in support of certification is true as it has not been discounted or countenanced. I am therefore now persuaded that the application is indeed urgent. In the result, I review and set aside my earlier order refusing to certify the application urgent. 6.In lieu therefore, I now certify the application urgent and direct the registry to set it down for interpartes hearing urgently. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.ASIKE-MAKHANDIA...................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the originalSignedDeputy Registrar