https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7535

In re Estate of Victoria mwendo Idenya (Deceased) (Succession Cause 1324 of 2010) [2026] KEHC 7535 (KLR) (Family) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7535 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Family Succession Cause 1324 of 2010 HK Chemitei, J June 4, 2026 IN THE MATTER THE ESTATE OF VICTORIA MWENDO IDENYA (DECEASED) Between Peter Aliosha Idenya Applicant and Dawood Aliosha Idenya Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling relates to the application dated 18th August, 2025 filed by the Applicant, Peter Alioshi Idenya; seeking for orders that:1.Spent.2.Pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honourable Court be pleased to stay any further proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.3.The honourable Court be pleased to stay the execution i.e., implementation of the ruling of Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Odero delivered on the 17th February, 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.4.The cost of this application be provided for. 2.The application is based on the grounds thereof and supported by affidavit and further affidavit sworn by Peter Aliosha Idenya on 18th August, 2025 and 22nd October, 2025. 3.In the supporting affidavit, he explains that he is one of the co – administrators and that one of the co-administrators, Dawood Alioshi Idenya, filed summons for confirmation of grant dated 19th March, 2019. Although some beneficiaries consented to the proposed distribution, he and other beneficiaries objected to the mode of distribution, particularly regarding L.R. No. 330/716, King’ara Road, which he contends should not form part of the estate available for distribution. 4.He therefore lodged a protest on 3rd May, 2019 challenging the proposed allocation of that property. He states that the protest was dismissed by Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Odero in a ruling delivered on 17th February, 2023. 5.Being dissatisfied with that decision, he promptly filed a Notice of Appeal and requested certified proceedings and a copy of the ruling to facilitate the intended appeal. He avers that despite making the request, he has not yet received the necessary proceedings and ruling, thereby delaying the preparation and filing of the record of appeal. 6.He further deposes that during the lifetime of the deceased and with the knowledge and consent of the Respondents, he entered into a joint venture arrangement with Carlingwood Investment Company Limited for the development of L.R. No. 330/716. He annexes copies of the joint venture agreement, photographs showing ongoing construction of high-end apartments on the property and a certificate of official search. 7.According to him, the development has substantially altered the status of the property and the official search demonstrates that the property is no longer registered in the name of the deceased but has since been transferred to another proprietor. He therefore contends that the property no longer forms part of the deceased’s estate and ought not to be subjected to distribution among the beneficiaries. The annexures include photographs of a multi-storey apartment development and a certificate of postal search indicating that the property is registered in the name of River Point Development Limited, with a caveat lodged by a purchaser claiming an interest in one of the apartments. 8.The deponent argues that the ruling of Justice Odero was erroneous both in fact and law because it failed to appreciate that the property had been jointly owned by him and the deceased during their marriage and that its status had materially changed through development and transfer. He maintains that confirmation of grant should not proceed while an appeal challenging the inclusion and distribution of the property remains unresolved. 9.He asserts that he has an arguable appeal and that unless the proceedings are stayed, the appeal would be rendered nugatory. He therefore seeks orders staying both the confirmation proceedings and the execution of the ruling of 17th February, 2023 pending the determination of the intended appeal. 10.In the alternative, he contends that, having solely purchased and developed the property without contribution from the other beneficiaries, it would be unjust to distribute it equally among them. 11.In the further affidavit, he responds to the replying affidavit sworn by the Respondent/co-administrator. He disputes the Respondent’s assertions and maintains that the Respondent has not been truthful regarding the circumstances surrounding the development of the disputed property. 12.He states that all beneficiaries of the estate signed a written consent on 26th June, 2015 authorizing him to source and engage a financial partner for the development of L.R. No. 330/716, King’ara Close, Nairobi. A copy of the signed consent is annexed and relied upon to demonstrate that the beneficiaries were aware of and approved the development arrangement. He reiterates that, pursuant to that authority, he entered into a joint venture agreement with Carlingwood Investment Company Limited, which proceeded to construct high-end residential apartments on the property. He therefore rejects allegations that he acted without authority or in disregard of the interests of the beneficiaries. 13.He further explains that although he had referred to the Notice of Appeal in the supporting affidavit, he inadvertently failed to annex it. He rectifies that omission by exhibiting both the Notice of Appeal dated 24th February, 2023 and the payment receipt evidencing its filing. 14.Peter Idenya further contends that the disputed property was jointly registered in the names of the deceased and himself and that, pursuant to Section 60 of the Land Registration Act, the deceased’s interest automatically vested in him upon her death as the surviving joint proprietor. On that basis, he argues that allegations of fraud are unsustainable because he became the lawful owner of the property by operation of law. 15.He maintains that the impugned judgment failed to properly appreciate the legal consequences of joint ownership between spouses and therefore warrants appellate intervention. 16.Finally, he addresses the delay in prosecuting the appeal and submits that any delay should be excused because the Court ought to balance the competing prejudice to the parties. He argues that denying him an opportunity to pursue the appeal would occasion greater injustice than any inconvenience caused by granting the stay sought. He therefore urges the Court to allow the application dated 18th August, 2025 and grant the orders sought together with costs. 17.The application is opposed vide grounds of opposition and replying affidavit sworn by Dawood Alioshi Idenya sworn on 9th September, 2025. 18.In the grounds of opposition, the Respondent contends that the application is frivolous, vexatious and constitutes an abuse of the Court process. He argues that the Applicant has approached the Court without clean hands and is therefore undeserving of the equitable relief sought. In his view, equity does not assist a party who has slept on his rights and the Applicant cannot reasonably seek a stay of proceedings in 2025 when the impugned judgment was delivered on 17th February, 2023. 19.The Respondent further asserts that the application is tainted with illegality because the Applicant has admitted that the disputed property was transferred to a third party during the pendency of the succession proceedings. They maintain that, despite claiming to have lodged a Notice of Appeal and expressing an intention to challenge the judgment before the Court of Appeal, the Applicant proceeded to transfer the suit property into another name without the knowledge, participation or concurrence of the co-administrator. 20.It is also their position that the alleged transfer was undertaken without a confirmed grant and without leave of the Court, rendering the transaction unlawful. According to the Respondents, such actions amount to intermeddling with the estate of the deceased and were calculated to defeat, prejudice or undermine the interests and entitlement of the beneficiaries of the estate. Consequently, they urge the Court to dismiss the application with costs. 21.In the replying affidavit, Dawood Alioshi Idenya, a co-administrator of the estate of the late Victoria Mwendo Idenya, states that he is duly appointed as a co-administrator together with Peter Alioshi Idenya, having been granted letters of administration intestate on 28th January, 2011. He annexes a copy of the grant confirming the joint appointment of the administrators. 22.He explains that on 7th October, 2013, the Applicant filed an application seeking authority to compel him, as co-administrator, to cooperate in the proposed sale of L.R. No. 330/716 to a developer through a joint venture arrangement. According to him, that application was never prosecuted and therefore remained unresolved. 23.He maintains that the Applicant nonetheless proceeded to enter into a joint venture agreement and execute documents relating to the property without consulting him or obtaining his participation as co-administrator, notwithstanding the fact that the property formed part of the estate under administration. He contends that any such joint venture agreement was entered into after the grant had been issued and was therefore invalid because the administrators were required to act jointly in dealing with estate property. 24.He further deposes that by the time the Applicant entered into the alleged development arrangements in June 2015, he lacked authority to transact in the estate property unilaterally. He argues that any documents executed in relation to the property without the participation and concurrence of the co-administrator were unlawful and incapable of conferring valid rights. 25.He also disputes the Applicant’s assertion that he had filed a Notice of Appeal, pointing out that the document annexed to the supporting affidavit was merely a request for proceedings rather than evidence of a properly filed appeal. He further argues that the Applicant’s request for stay of proceedings is inconsistent with his own conduct. He notes that while the Applicant seeks preservation of the succession proceedings, he simultaneously claims that the property has already been transferred to another party. 26.According to the Respondent, if such a transfer occurred, the Applicant ought to have disclosed the relevant title documents and the Court should consider enjoining the developer or transferee as a party to the proceedings. He asserts that any transfer undertaken during the pendency of the succession cause would be fraudulent, intended to defeat the interests of the beneficiaries and calculated to frustrate the administration of the estate. 27.He emphasizes that the issues now being raised by the Applicant concerning the ownership and distribution of the property were comprehensively addressed by Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Odero in her judgment delivered on 17th February, 2023, which dismissed the Applicant’s protest. He contends that the Applicant cannot seek a stay more than two years after delivery of the judgment because the law does not aid indolent litigants. 28.In his view, if the Applicant genuinely intended to pursue an appeal, he ought to have sought stay orders immediately after the judgment was delivered. He also points out that, notwithstanding the application for stay, construction of high-end apartments on the disputed property has continued, as demonstrated by the photographs annexed by the Applicant himself. He argues that the Applicant cannot simultaneously seek preservation of the status quo while permitting or facilitating ongoing development of the estate property. 29.Further, he avers that the succession proceedings have not been dormant since the 2023 judgment. The parties have continued to attend Court pursuant to several mention and hearing notices issued between July 2023 and November 2024, all of which were served upon the Applicant. Consequently, he rejects any suggestion that the matter has been inactive or that the Applicant was unaware of the progress of the proceedings. The annexures include copies of mention and hearing notices evidencing continued participation in the cause after the judgment. 30.In conclusion, he maintains that the application lacks merit, is brought after inordinate and unexplained delay and is intended to obstruct the administration and distribution of the estate. He urges the Court to dismiss the application and allow the succession proceedings to proceed to conclusion. 31.The Applicant has filed written submissions dated 22nd October, 2025. He submits that the application dated 18th August, 2025 seeks two principal orders: a stay of the succession proceedings and a stay of execution of the ruling delivered by Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Odero on 17th February, 2023. He notes that the application is opposed by the co-administrator, Dawood Alioshi Idenya, through a replying affidavit and grounds of opposition. 32.He frames the dispute around two issues, namely whether the proceedings should be stayed and whether execution of the impugned ruling should be stayed pending the intended appeal. 33.On the issue of stay of proceedings, the Applicant argues that following the dismissal of his protest on 17th February, 2023, he promptly lodged a Notice of Appeal and requested certified proceedings with a view to pursuing an appeal. He contends that before he could obtain the proceedings and prepare the record of appeal, the Respondent moved the matter for confirmation of grant, thereby necessitating the present application. 34.Relying on the decision in Global Tours & Travels Limited; Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000, the Applicant submits that the Court must consider whether the intended appeal is arguable and whether failure to grant a stay would render the appeal nugatory. He maintains that the intended appeal is arguable because it raises substantial questions regarding the treatment and distribution of property that was allegedly jointly owned by spouses. He contends that the appeal challenges whether such property can properly be distributed among beneficiaries of an estate who were not registered owners. 35.According to the Applicant, this is a weighty legal issue deserving consideration by the appellate Court and therefore satisfies the threshold of an arguable appeal. 36.The Applicant further submits that unless the proceedings are stayed, the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory. He argues that the succession Court may proceed to confirm the grant and distribute the disputed property before the appellate Court has had an opportunity to determine the ownership dispute. 37.In support of this proposition, he relies on the decision in Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Nicholas Ombija, where the Court of Appeal observed that an appeal may be rendered worthless if events occurring before its determination make it impossible to restore the subject matter or reverse the consequences of the impugned decision. He therefore contends that preservation of the property and the status quo is necessary to safeguard the efficacy of the intended appeal. 38.He also rejects the allegation of inordinate delay, arguing that the proceedings remain active and that no prejudice has been demonstrated by the Respondent. 39.Regarding the prayer for stay of execution, he invokes Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and submits that he has satisfied the statutory requirements. He argues that sufficient cause exists because the purpose of a stay pending appeal is to preserve the subject matter of litigation so that the Appellant’s right of appeal is not rendered illusory. 40.He contends that the ruling directing confirmation of grant would result in the disputed property being distributed among beneficiaries despite his claim that he was a joint proprietor of the property with the deceased. 41.On substantial loss, the Applicant argues that he is the surviving owner of the property and would suffer prejudice if compelled to share it with beneficiaries whom he considers to have no proprietary interest in it. He submits that the balance of prejudice favours preservation of the property pending appeal, rather than permitting distribution that may later prove irreversible. 42.In support of this argument, he relies on Mohamed Salim T/A Choice Butchery v Nasserpuria Memon Jamat, where the Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the fruits of a successful appeal and preventing a successful litigant from being deprived of meaningful relief. 43.Finally, the Applicant submits that he is willing to furnish security as may be directed by the Court, although he notes that the dispute concerns land and therefore conventional security may not be necessary. He maintains that he has satisfied all the legal conditions governing the grant of stay orders and urges the Court to allow the application in its entirety. 44.The Respondent has filed written submissions dated 15th December, 2025. He opposes the Notice of Motion dated 18th August, 2025 through which the Applicant seeks a stay of further proceedings and a stay of execution of the ruling delivered by Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Odero on 17th February, 2023. 45.He submits that the application arises from the dismissal of the Applicant’s protest and argues that the Applicant has deliberately omitted important aspects of the history of the matter because they undermine his present position. 46.He points out that the Applicant himself initially listed L.R. No. 330/716, King’ara Road as an asset of the deceased’s estate when petitioning for letters of administration and acknowledged that the deceased owned a 50% interest in the property, which was jointly registered in the names of the deceased and the Applicant. The Petitioner traces the procedural history of the succession cause, noting that letters of administration were issued jointly to the Applicant and the Petitioner on 28th January, 2011. 47.In 2013, the Applicant filed an application seeking to compel the Petitioner to cooperate in the sale and development of the property through a joint venture arrangement, but he never prosecuted that application. Thereafter, the Applicant failed to move the Court for confirmation of grant, resulting in the cause being listed for dismissal for want of prosecution. Although the matter was dismissed in November 2018, the Petitioner successfully applied for its reinstatement, and the Court directed that either Administrator could seek confirmation of grant within sixty days. 48.In compliance with those directions, the Respondent filed summons for confirmation of grant, prompting the Applicant to lodge a protest in May 2019 contending that the property did not form part of the estate. He submits that this position contradicted the Applicant’s earlier pleadings in which he had expressly included the deceased’s share of the property among the estate assets. The protest was subsequently dismissed by Justice Odero after hearing both parties. 49.He argues that the Applicant’s conduct demonstrates that he has always known the deceased owned an interest in the property and that his present claim is an attempt to avoid distribution of that share to the beneficiaries. 50.It is submitted that the Applicant has failed to explain why he waited more than two years after the ruling before seeking stay orders despite having been served with mention and hearing notices throughout that period. He further contends that the Applicant, who occupies a fiduciary position as both father of the beneficiaries and co-administrator, has instead transferred the disputed property to a third party. 51.According to him, the Applicant now seeks a stay over a property he has admittedly disposed of, rendering the application contradictory and an abuse of the Court process. He emphasizes that the Applicant has acknowledged in his supporting affidavit that the property is no longer registered in the name of the estate because it has been transferred to another party. This admission, it is argued, amounts to evidence that the Applicant acted in disregard of the Court process, the rights of the beneficiaries and the authority of the co-administrator. 52.He maintains that any such transfer required both Court approval and the consent of the beneficiaries and co-administrator, none of which were obtained. The Applicant has also failed to join the alleged transferee or developer to the proceedings, notwithstanding his reliance on the transfer as a basis for the stay application. 53.For these reasons, the Respondent submits that the Applicant has approached the Court with unclean hands and is undeserving of equitable relief. 54.Turning to the legal requirements for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Respondent submits that the Applicant has failed to satisfy any of the mandatory conditions. 55.First, he has not demonstrated any substantial loss because, having already transferred the property to a third party, he cannot plausibly claim that he stands to suffer prejudice if the stay is denied. 56.Secondly, the application was brought after an unexplained delay of nearly two and a half years following the delivery of judgment on 17th February, 2023, which delay is said to be inordinate and inexcusable. 57.Thirdly, the Applicant has neither offered nor proposed any security for the due performance of the decree. Finally, the Respondent contends that the purpose of a stay is to preserve the subject matter pending appeal, yet the Applicant’s own evidence shows that the subject property has already been alienated, thereby defeating the very rationale for granting a stay. 58.In conclusion, the Respondent submits that the application is devoid of merit, fails to satisfy the statutory requirements for stay and is intended only to delay the finalization of the estate. The Court is therefore urged to dismiss the application with costs and allow the succession proceedings to proceed to confirmation and distribution of the estate. Analysis And Determination 59.I have gone through the application, the responses thereto and the rival submissions. 60.The application before the Court seeks two substantive orders: first, a stay of further proceedings in the succession cause pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal; and secondly, a stay of execution of the ruling delivered by Hon. Lady Justice Maureen Odero on 17th February, 2023. 61.The Applicant contends that he lodged a Notice of Appeal against the dismissal of his protest and that the intended appeal raises arguable questions regarding the legal status and distribution of L.R. No. 330/716, King’ara Road, which he maintains was jointly owned by himself and the deceased. The Respondent opposes the application on grounds of inordinate delay, lack of merit, intermeddling with estate property and failure to satisfy the legal requirements for stay. 62.The guiding principles on stay of proceedings and stay of execution have been well established vide the authorities below. 63.In Waweru v Bor & another [2024] KEHC 6325 (KLR) the Court pronounced itself as follows: “… 21. The principles guiding stay of proceedings were laid down by a 5-judge Bench of the High Court, after looking at our jurisprudential scan on the question of stay of proceedings in the case of William Odhiambo Ramogi & 2 Others v the Honourable Attorney General & 3 Others [2019] eKLR; a. First, there must be an appeal pending before the higher Court; b. Second, where such stay is sought in the Court hearing the case as opposed to the higher Court to which the Appeal has been filed and there is no express provision of the law allowing for such an application, the Applicant should explain why the stay has not been sought in the higher Court. This is because, due to the potential of an application for stay of proceedings to inordinately delay trial, there is a policy in favour of applications for stay being handled in the Court to which an appeal is preferred because such a Court is familiar with its docket and is therefore in a position to calibrate any order it gives accordingly; c. Third, the Applicant must demonstrate that the appeal raises substantial questions to be determined or is otherwise arguable; d. Fourth, the Applicant must demonstrate that the Appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay of proceedings is not granted; e. Fifth, the Applicant must demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances which make the stay of proceedings warranted as opposed to having the case concluded and all arising grievances taken up on a single appeal; and f. Sixth, the Applicant must demonstrate that the application for stay was filed expeditiously and without delay. 22. In the same vein, in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 37 at p. 330: “The stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial on the basis of the substantive merits of his case, and therefore the Court’s general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceedings, beyond reasonable doubt, ought not to be allowed to continue….This is a power which, it has been emphasized, ought to be exercised sparingly, and only in exceptional cases…It will be exercised where the proceedings are shown to be frivolous, vexatious or harassing or to be manifestly groundless or in which there is clearly no cause of action in law or in equity. The Applicant for a stay on this ground must show not merely that the plaintiff might not, or probably would not, succeed but that he could not possibly succeed on the basis of the pleading and the facts of this case.” 23. From the foregoing authorities, it is evident that the stay of proceedings is a radical measure which is only exercised in the most of deserving cases. This is a discretionary power that is exercised by the Court sparingly. Hence, granting stay of proceedings pending an appeal over interlocutory matters is decided on the facts of each case and with “due regard to the salutary general rule that appeals are not entertained piecemeal.” See Walhaus & Others v Additional Magistrate, Johannesburg & Another, 1959 (3) SA 113(A) at 120D…” 64.In Mwatha v Karanja [2025] KEHC 6146 (KLR) the Court pronounced itself as follows: “… 5. I have considered the application, the affidavit in support thereof, the replying affidavit and the submissions filed by the parties. What this Court is tasked to determine is whether the Appellant has satisfied the criteria and/or conditions for grant of an order of stay of execution pending appeal. 6.Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out the three conditions to be satisfied by an Applicant for an order of stay of execution pending appeal to be granted. 7.The first condition under the rule is that the application for stay pending appeal must have been brought without unreasonable delay. I note that the judgement upon which the order for stay pending appeal is sought was entered on 5th February, 2024 and that the application that is the subject of this ruling was filed on 31st August, 2024…. 11.The second condition under the rule touches on substantial loss that the Applicant stands to suffer if stay of execution is not ordered. On this, the Applicant submitted that the decree will be executed if stay of execution is not ordered and that the same will occasion him irreparable loss. 12.The Applicant conveyed his apprehension that should his appeal eventually succeed, he is unlikely to recover the decretal sum if execution proceeds. 13.The question as to who bears the burden of proof on the issue of refund in the event of a successful appeal was discussed in the case of National Industrial Credit Bank Limited v Aquinas Francis Wasike & another [2006] eKLR, in which the Court observed as follows: “Once an Applicant expresses a reasonable fear that a Respondent would be unable to pay back the decretal sum, the evidential burden must then shift to the Respondent to show what resources he has since that is a matter which is peculiarly within his knowledge….”… 15. The third and final condition is the provision of security for the due performance of the decree. On this, the Appellant does not state in his affidavit in support of the motion or his further affidavit that he is ready and willing to provide security. He has therefore not satisfied the third condition…” 65.The principles governing stay of proceedings are now settled. A party seeking such relief must demonstrate, inter alia, the existence of an arguable appeal, that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay is refused, the existence of exceptional circumstances and that the application has been brought without unreasonable delay. Equally, stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy that interrupts the ordinary course of litigation and is therefore granted sparingly. 66.In the present case, the Applicant has exhibited a Notice of Appeal dated 24th February, 2023 and therefore demonstrates an intention to challenge the ruling before the Court of Appeal. The question whether property held in joint ownership between spouses devolves to the surviving proprietor by survivorship or forms part of the deceased’s estate is not frivolous and may constitute an arguable point of law. 67.However, the existence of an arguable appeal alone is insufficient. The ruling sought to be challenged was delivered on 17th February, 2023, yet the present application was not filed until 18th August, 2025, more than two years later. The Applicant has attributed the delay to the failure by the Court registry to supply certified proceedings and the ruling. Nevertheless, the record demonstrates that the succession cause remained active, with mention and hearing notices issued and served upon the parties between 2023 and 2024. No satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why the Applicant did not seek stay orders promptly after filing the Notice of Appeal. The delay is therefore substantial and inordinate. 68.The Applicant further seeks to preserve the disputed property pending appeal, yet his own evidence reveals that the property has been developed and transferred to a third party, namely River Point Development Limited. The certificate of search annexed by the Applicant confirms that the property is no longer registered in the name of the deceased. If indeed the transfer occurred during the pendency of the succession proceedings and before confirmation of grant, that conduct raises serious questions regarding the propriety of the transaction and whether the Applicant acted within the authority conferred upon him as co-administrator. 69.More importantly, the Applicant cannot simultaneously contend that the property has ceased to form part of the estate while seeking stay orders to preserve it as the subject matter of the intended appeal. The transfer and development of the property have materially altered the status quo, thereby undermining the argument that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory by continuation of the succession proceedings. 70.With regard to stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Applicant bears the burden of demonstrating substantial loss, promptness in bringing the application and willingness to furnish security. The Applicant has not established substantial loss. If his contention is that the property already vested in him by survivorship and was subsequently transferred to a third party, then it is difficult to discern what immediate prejudice he stands to suffer from the confirmation proceedings. 71.Conversely, the beneficiaries stand to suffer continued delay in the administration and distribution of an estate that has remained unresolved for over a decade. Further, the application was filed after an unexplained delay of more than two years. Although the Applicant states in his submissions that he is willing to provide security, no such undertaking appears in the supporting affidavits and no concrete proposal for security has been offered. The Applicant has therefore failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements for grant of stay of execution. 72.In the circumstances, while the Court acknowledges that the intended appeal may raise arguable questions concerning joint ownership and survivorship, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of proceedings or to satisfy the statutory conditions for stay of execution. The inordinate delay, the apparent transfer of the disputed property during the pendency of the succession proceedings, the absence of demonstrated substantial loss and the failure to offer security all militate against the exercise of the Court’s discretion in his favour. 73.Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 18th August, 2025 is hereby dismissed for lack of merit 74.Each party to bear its own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.H K CHEMITEIJUDGE, FCIArb.