https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/981

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/981

The application was incompetent because no notice of appeal in respect of the impugned ruling was annexed or shown, depriving the Court of jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b); it was further defective for unlawfully seeking stay of an unappealed 2024 judgment. The motion was therefore irredeemably defective and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KECA 981 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Noor Haji Ali; 1st Respondent: John Kiarie Njoroge (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Njoroge Ngugi); 2nd Respondent: Lucy Wanjiru Njoroge (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Njoroge Ngugi)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E092 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Ruling on Application Under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Judges
["W Karanja", "A Ali-Aroni", "LM Njuguna"]
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution Pending Appeal, Rule 5(2)(b) Jurisdiction, Notice of Appeal Requirement, Omnibus Application, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Land Law Stay of Execution Pending Appeal Rule 5(2)(b) Jurisdiction Notice of Appeal Requirement Omnibus Application Abuse of Court Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noor Haji Ali

Applicant

John Kiarie Njoroge (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Njoroge Ngugi)

1st Respondent

Lucy Wanjiru Njoroge (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Njoroge Ngugi)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Ruling on Application Under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

  1. 1 Whether the application was competent without an annexed notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Court had jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
  3. 3 Whether the application was defective for seeking stay of a judgment not appealed against

Ratio Decidendi

The application was incompetent because no notice of appeal in respect of the impugned ruling was annexed or shown, depriving the Court of jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b); it was further defective for unlawfully seeking stay of an unappealed 2024 judgment. The motion was therefore irredeemably defective and dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • Notice of motion dismissed with costs to the respondent.