[2025] KEHC 9970 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9970 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that the minors would suffer if a stay of execution was not granted. The court emphasized that the best interests of the child are paramount in all matters concerning children, as provided by Article 53(2) of the Constitution. The applicant did not provide evidence that the minors were at risk in the respondent's custody or that the current arrangement should be disturbed pending appeal. The absence of a memorandum of appeal further weakened the applicant's case, as the court could not assess the arguability of the intended appeal. Consequently, the application for stay of execution lacked merit and was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9970 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: LJK; Respondent: CM
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 July 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E094 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
PM Nyaundi
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Best Interests of the Child, Stay of Execution, Parental Responsibility
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Child Custody Best Interests of the Child Stay of Execution Parental Responsibility

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LJK

Applicant

CM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution of the judgment and orders of the trial court pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the best interests of the minors require a stay of execution of the custody orders.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a memorandum of appeal affects the application for stay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that the minors would suffer if a stay of execution was not granted. The court emphasized that the best interests of the child are paramount in all matters concerning children, as provided by Article 53(2) of the Constitution. The applicant did not provide evidence that the minors were at risk in the respondent's custody or that the current arrangement should be disturbed pending appeal. The absence of a memorandum of appeal further weakened the applicant's case, as the court could not assess the arguability of the intended appeal. Consequently, the application for stay of execution lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 20th August 2024 is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.