Kaboro & another v Miano & another (Civil Appeal E049 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5693 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Kaboro & another v Miano & another (Civil Appeal E049 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5693 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

The court held that substitution of a cash deposit with a title deed as security for stay of execution is not permissible because it would make recovery of the judgment debt by the respondent uncertain and difficult, rendering the security illusory. The appellant's financial constraints do not justify review of the order, but time for compliance is extended.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5693 (KLR)
Parties
1st Appellant: Moses Mwai Kaboro; 2nd Appellant: Mugambi Rutere t/a Giant Auctioneer; 1st Respondent: David Muriithi Miano; 2nd Respondent: Abijah Waruguru
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E049 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Security for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; time for compliance with deposit order extended by 30 days.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Review of Court Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Review of Court Orders

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Mwai Kaboro

1st Appellant

Mugambi Rutere t/a Giant Auctioneer

2nd Appellant

David Muriithi Miano

1st Respondent

Abijah Waruguru

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Security for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be allowed to substitute a cash deposit with a title deed as security for stay of execution pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's financial constraints justify review of the security order

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that substitution of a cash deposit with a title deed as security for stay of execution is not permissible because it would make recovery of the judgment debt by the respondent uncertain and difficult, rendering the security illusory. The appellant's financial constraints do not justify review of the order, but time for compliance is extended.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; time for compliance with deposit order extended by 30 days.

Orders

  • Application dated 2/1/2026 dismissed.
  • Time to deposit Ksh.2,000,000/- as security extended by 30 days from date of ruling.