Rop v Khetia Garments Limited & 3 others (Civil Appeal E041 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 5477 (KLR) (28 April 2026) (Ruling)

Rop v Khetia Garments Limited & 3 others (Civil Appeal E041 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 5477 (KLR) (28 April 2026) (Ruling)

The appeal raises bona fide, arguable questions regarding the necessity of a court inspection to resolve conflicting evidence on the identity of disputed machines. Proceeding without stay would render the appeal moot and cause irreversible procedural harm. The applicant acted expeditiously, and the balance of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5477 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Emily Jeruto Rop; 1st Respondent: Khetia Garments Limited; 2nd Respondent: Simon Mugambi Mutwiri; 3rd Respondent: GPL Ventures Limited; 4th Respondent: Flavours Toast Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E041 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings granted.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Appeals, Court Inspection, Fair Hearing
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Interlocutory Appeals Court Inspection Fair Hearing

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emily Jeruto Rop

Appellant/applicant

Khetia Garments Limited

1st Respondent

Simon Mugambi Mutwiri

2nd Respondent

GPL Ventures Limited

3rd Respondent

Flavours Toast Limited

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial magistrate erred in declining a locus in quo inspection of disputed machinery
  2. 2 Whether Order 18 Rule 11 and Order 40 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 were correctly applied
  3. 3 Whether the trial magistrate was obligated to give reasons for refusal and whether failure rendered the ruling defective

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal raises bona fide, arguable questions regarding the necessity of a court inspection to resolve conflicting evidence on the identity of disputed machines. Proceeding without stay would render the appeal moot and cause irreversible procedural harm. The applicant acted expeditiously, and the balance of convenience favors granting the stay.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings granted.

Orders

  • Proceedings in Eldoret CMCC No. E489 of 2024 stayed pending hearing and determination of this appeal.
  • Appellant to file and serve Record of Appeal, written submissions, and list of authorities within thirty days.