[2025] KEHC 7861 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7861 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was not made timeously, as it was filed several months after both the judgment and the subsequent order. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would be suffered if the stay was not granted, merely stating his financial limitations without evidence of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the applicant did not offer any security for the due performance of the decree, as required by the rules. The court emphasized that all three conditions for granting a stay—timeliness, demonstration of substantial loss, and provision of security—are conjunctive and must be satisfied. The applicant failed on all counts. The court also...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7861 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Michael Abongo Oddera; Respondent: Dickson Mbogo Achieng
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
5 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E050 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Substantial Loss, Security for Performance, Timeliness of Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeals Process Substantial Loss Security for Performance Timeliness of Application

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Abongo Oddera

Appellant

Dickson Mbogo Achieng

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 made timeously.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided security for the due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was not made timeously, as it was filed several months after both the judgment and the subsequent order. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would be suffered if the stay was not granted, merely stating his financial limitations without evidence of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the applicant did not offer any security for the due performance of the decree, as required by the rules. The court emphasized that all three conditions for granting a stay—timeliness, demonstration of substantial loss, and provision of security—are conjunctive and must be satisfied. The applicant failed on all counts. The court also...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 4/5/2025 is dismissed with costs.