https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8600
The application for stay failed because the applicant did not demonstrate entitlement to stay, omitted essential supporting annexures including the impugned ruling and decree, and the underlying judgment was uncontested and not under appeal; the court therefore treated the application as an abuse of process and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 8600 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant/appellant: Justus Ngugi; Respondent: St John’s Optical Services
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E013 of 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- Judges
- ["SM Mohochi"]
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Order 24 Rule 6, Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Abuse of Court Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Justus Ngugi
Applicant/appellant
St John’s Optical Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the principles for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the application was competent where the annexures, impugned ruling, and decree were not filed.
- 3 Whether the interlocutory appeal could affect an uncontested and unimpeached judgment not subject to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for stay failed because the applicant did not demonstrate entitlement to stay, omitted essential supporting annexures including the impugned ruling and decree, and the underlying judgment was uncontested and not under appeal; the court therefore treated the application as an abuse of process and dismissed it with costs.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Orders
- Application dated 10th March 2026 dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ngugi v St John’s Optical Services (Civil Appeal E013 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 8600 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8600 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Busia Civil Appeal E013 of 2026 SM Mohochi, J June 17, 2026 Between Justus Ngugi Applicant and St John’s Optical Services Respondent Ruling 1.This is an Application filed pursuant to Order 24 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, dated 10th March 2026 essentially seeking stay of execution of a decree in Busia SCC No E195 of 2025 pending hearing of the instant Appeal. 2.It is noteworthy that the applicant failed to file any of the annexures’ listed in his Affidavit of support including the impugned Ruling being Appealed against and the Decree sought to be stayed 3.The instant Appeal is an interlocutory Appeal against ruling dated 3rd March 2026 dismissing the Applicants Application to set aside a default judgment. 4.The Judgment giving rise to the decree sought to be stayed is unimpeached, uncontested and not on Appeal. 5.I have equally considered the Applicants conduct so far that pushes him away from the court of equity, he appears with unclean hands, hell-bent of circumventing due process of the law. 6.The Appeal in this instant shall not alter the unimpeached judgment that remains uncontested. 7.I have considered the Application and the response in opposition and I find that the Applicant has failed to persuade this court that he has satisfied the principles for grant of an Orders of stay. 8.The Application dated 10th March 2026 is an abuse of the process of court, bereft of any merit and therefore is dismissed with costs to the Respondent 9.The Appellant shall within the next sixty (60) days set-down the interlocutory Appeal for Admission, hearing and disposal.It is so ordered SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED AT BUSIA ON THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.MOHOCHI S. M.PRESIDING JUDGE