[2025] KEHC 10274 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10274 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss as required under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application for stay was filed after an undue delay of eight months, with no explanation provided for the delay. The familial relationship between the parties, while...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10274 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Githinji Kiruthi; Respondent: Fredrick Kinyanjui Kiruthi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
17 July 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E282 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
TW Ouya
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Costs Award, Withdrawal of Suit, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Costs Award Withdrawal of Suit Judicial Discretion

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Githinji Kiruthi

Appellant

Fredrick Kinyanjui Kiruthi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the trial court's ruling awarding costs to the respondent pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss as required under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application for stay was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss as required under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application for stay was filed after an undue delay of eight months, with no explanation provided for the delay. The familial relationship between the parties, while acknowledged, does not constitute substantial loss in law. Execution is a lawful process, and the applicant's impecuniosity and concerns about family relations do not meet the threshold for granting a stay. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for stay of execution pending appeal and declined to order the applicant to provide security, as the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.