Sanghani & another v Wainaina (Civil Case E092 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 5292 (KLR) (Civ) (10 April 2026) (Ruling)

Sanghani & another v Wainaina (Civil Case E092 of 2019) [2026] KEHC 5292 (KLR) (Civ) (10 April 2026) (Ruling)

The applicant failed to honour both the consent judgment and his own sworn undertaking, and did not provide credible proof of payment. There are no arguable grounds of appeal. The court's discretion cannot be invoked by a party who has persistently obstructed execution and disregarded court orders.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5292 (KLR)
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Rajendra Ratilal Sanghani; 2nd Plaintiff: Granada Trading Company Limited; Defendant/applicant: George Wainaina
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Case E092 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs/Decree Holders.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Committal to Civil Jail, Execution of Decrees
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Insolvency Leave to Appeal Stay of Execution Committal to Civil Jail Execution of Decrees

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajendra Ratilal Sanghani

1st Plaintiff

Granada Trading Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

George Wainaina

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal against the order for warrants of arrest
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to stay of execution of the warrants of arrest

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to honour both the consent judgment and his own sworn undertaking, and did not provide credible proof of payment. There are no arguable grounds of appeal. The court's discretion cannot be invoked by a party who has persistently obstructed execution and disregarded court orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs/Decree Holders.

Orders

  • Defendant’s Application dated 11th August 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs/Decree Holders.