[2025] KEHC 4749 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicants failed to explain the four-month delay in filing the application for leave to appeal and stay of execution. The absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay undermined the urgency and credibility of the application. Furthermore, the Applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 4749 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Patrick Kabiru; Applicant: Rose Muhonja; Respondent: George Ohuru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous E034 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Delay in Application
- 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
Patrick Kabiru
Applicant
Rose Muhonja
Applicant
George Ohuru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Applicants should be granted leave to appeal the judgment delivered on 19th September 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E5369 of 2022.
- 2 Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for granting a stay of execution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicants failed to explain the four-month delay in filing the application for leave to appeal and stay of execution. The absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay undermined the urgency and credibility of the application. Furthermore, the Applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate or substantiate the claim of substantial loss, as required by law. The court emphasized that the principle of substantial loss is central to the grant of a stay of execution and must be supported by clear evidence. In the absence of both an adequate explanation for the delay and evidence of substantial loss, the court concluded that the application lacked merit and dismissed...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The prayer for leave to appeal the judgment delivered on 19th September 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E5369 of 2022 is disallowed.
- The prayer for a stay of execution is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
Kabiru & another v Ohuru (Civil Miscellaneous E034 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 4749 (KLR) (Civ) (27 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 4749 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Miscellaneous E034 of 2025
TW Cherere, J
March 27, 2025
Between
Patrick Kabiru
1st Applicant
Rose Muhonja
2nd Applicant
and
George Ohuru
Respondent
Ruling
Background 1. This application is brought by the Applicant under Order 22 Rule 22, Order 42 Rules 4, 6, and 7, Order 51 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicant seeks the following orders:1. Leave to appeal the judgment delivered on 19th September 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E5369 of 20222. Stay of execution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on 17th January 2025 by Magero Obadiah, an advocate for the Applicant. In the affidavit, the Applicant contends that:1. They are aggrieved by the judgment delivered on 19th September 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E5369 of 2022 and intend to appeal the decision.2. They will suffer substantial loss if a stay of execution is not granted.3. The Respondent’s advocates, despite being served, neither filed a response nor attended the hearing of the application.4. Upon consideration of the application, the arguments presented, and the absence of any opposition, the Court the issues for determination are as follows:1. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to appeal the judgment delivered on 19th September 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E5369 of 2022. 2.Whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for granting a stay of execution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
5. The impugned judgment was delivered on 19th September 2024, and the application was filed on 17th January 2025, resulting in a delay of approximately four months.
6. The Applicant has not explained the delay in bringing the current application. As established in Nguruman Limited v. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR,KEHC 1718 (KLR), the delay in making an application must be adequately explained.
7. The Applicant here has failed to explain the delay. In the absence of a clear and reasonable explanation, the Court is left to conclude that the delay undermines the urgency of the application.
8. In RWW v EKW [2019] KEHC 6523 (KLR), the Court emphasized the need for the Applicant to show substantial loss. Additionally, Nguruman Limited v. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others (supra) reinforces that it is not sufficient to merely claim substantial loss without substantiating it with evidence.
9. The Applicant has argued that substantial loss will be suffered if the stay of execution is not granted. However, the Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated or substantiated the nature of this loss.
10. The principle of substantial loss is central to the granting of a stay of execution. The Applicant must show that the loss to be suffered cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages or that it would be irreversible.
11. In this case, while the Applicant has stated the potential for substantial loss, there is no clear evidence to substantiate this claim.
12. Further, the failure to provide specific details on how the execution of the judgment would result in irremediable harm weakens the argument for the grant of a stay.
13. The requirement for a stay of execution is not merely procedural but is anchored in the possibility of irreparable loss if execution proceeds.
14. In light of the Applicant’s failure to sufficiently demonstrate substantial loss and the unexplained delay in filing the application, the application before the court lacks merit.
15. For the reasons outlined above:1. The prayer for leave to appeal the judgment delivered on 19th September 2024 in Milimani CMCC No. E5369 of 2022 is disallowed.2. The prayer for a stay of execution is equally disallowed.
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025WAMAE.T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - UbahFor Applicant - Mr. Magero for Kimondo Gachoka & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondent - N/A for Shem Kebongo & Co. Advocates