Murimi v Gikonyo (Civil Appeal E175 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5829 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

Murimi v Gikonyo (Civil Appeal E175 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5829 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Ruling)

The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or that execution would render the appeal nugatory, and did not meet the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The supporting affidavit was properly before the court, but the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5829 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant/applicant: John Matu Murimi; Respondent: Jasan Kamau Gikonjo
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E175 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Consent Judgment, Security for Costs, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Consent Judgment Security for Costs Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Matu Murimi

Appellant/applicant

Jasan Kamau Gikonjo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supporting affidavit is defective and ought to be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or that execution would render the appeal nugatory, and did not meet the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The supporting affidavit was properly before the court, but the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • application dated 3rd July 2025 dismissed with costs