[2025] KEHC 6146 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6146 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant failed to satisfy two of the three mandatory conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the application was filed nearly six months after judgment without any explanation for the delay, failing the requirement of promptness. Additionally, the appellant did not offer or express willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree. While the court accepted that the appellant demonstrated substantial loss due to the respondent's failure to prove financial capacity to refund the decretal sum, the absence of compliance with the other two conditions was fatal....

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6146 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Cyrus Gathatwa Mwatha; Respondent: Samuel Njuguna Karanja
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E308 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JM Omido
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Order 42 Rule 6, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Unreasonable Delay
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Order 42 Rule 6 Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance Unreasonable Delay

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyrus Gathatwa Mwatha

Appellant

Samuel Njuguna Karanja

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal was filed without unreasonable delay.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant offered security for due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to satisfy two of the three mandatory conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the application was filed nearly six months after judgment without any explanation for the delay, failing the requirement of promptness. Additionally, the appellant did not offer or express willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree. While the court accepted that the appellant demonstrated substantial loss due to the respondent's failure to prove financial capacity to refund the decretal sum, the absence of compliance with the other two conditions was fatal....

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application shall be borne by the appellant.