Mulee v Daud & another (Suing as Next of Kin to and as the Legal representatives of the Estate of Musyoki Daudi - Deceased) (Civil Appeal E093 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 5895 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Mulee v Daud & another (Suing as Next of Kin to and as the Legal representatives of the Estate of Musyoki Daudi - Deceased) (Civil Appeal E093 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 5895 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

The security offered is not owned by the Appellant but by a friend who is not a party to the case, and there is no legal guarantee the Respondent can hold the properties in lieu of the decretal sum; therefore, the Appellant does not meet the requirements for the court to exercise discretion in his favour.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5895 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Mathew Mbithi Mulee; Respondent: Joyce Ndulu Daud; Respondent: Patrick Musyoka Kanyasya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E093 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Variation of Stay Condition
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Variation of Court Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Costs Variation 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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathew Mbithi Mulee

Appellant/applicant

Joyce Ndulu Daud

Respondent

Patrick Musyoka Kanyasya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Variation of Stay Condition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant can substitute the deposit of decretal sum with title deeds of immovable properties as security for stay of execution

Ratio Decidendi

The security offered is not owned by the Appellant but by a friend who is not a party to the case, and there is no legal guarantee the Respondent can hold the properties in lieu of the decretal sum; therefore, the Appellant does not meet the requirements for the court to exercise discretion in his favour.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • no order for costs