[2025] KEHC 10101 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 10101 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that she would suffer substantial loss if stay of execution was not granted, as the rental income in question is quantifiable and compensable in monetary terms should the appeal succeed. The application for stay was filed four months after the ruling, and no explanation was provided for the delay, though the court did not find the delay inordinate. The applicant also failed to provide evidence of security for due performance. The court emphasized that the principles under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be satisfied cumulatively, and the applicant did not meet this threshold. Consequently, the application for...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 10101 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Grace Gathoni Mwathi; Respondent: Elizabeth Wangu Karani
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 July 2025
Case Number
Succession Appeal E014 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Succession Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MA Odero
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Grant of Letters of Administration, Substantial Loss, Succession Disputes
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family and Children Stay of Execution Grant of Letters of Administration Substantial Loss Succession Disputes

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Gathoni Mwathi

Appellant

Elizabeth Wangu Karani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether substantial loss would result to the applicant if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that she would suffer substantial loss if stay of execution was not granted, as the rental income in question is quantifiable and compensable in monetary terms should the appeal succeed. The application for stay was filed four months after the ruling, and no explanation was provided for the delay, though the court did not find the delay inordinate. The applicant also failed to provide evidence of security for due performance. The court emphasized that the principles under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be satisfied cumulatively, and the applicant did not meet this threshold. Consequently, the application for...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 5th November 2024 is dismissed in its entirety.
  • Costs to be met by the applicant.