https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12616

Speed Capital Ltd v Maruti (Miscellaneous Civil Application E065 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 12616 (KLR) (Civ) (30 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12616 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Miscellaneous Civil Application E065 of 2026 WA Okwany, J July 30, 2026 Between Speed Capital Limited Applicant and Lucy Wairimu Maruti Respondent Ruling 1.The Applicant filed two Notices of Motion dated 16th February 2026 and 2nd March 2026 principally seeking leave to appeal out of time against the ruling delivered on 12th September 2025 in Milimani CMCC No.1108 of 2019, stay of execution of the said ruling and all consequential orders, including the decree, warrants of attachment and proclamation issued pursuant thereto, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal. 2.The second application further seeks stay of the proclamation notice dated 27th February 2026 and warrants of attachment issued on 30th January 2026. The applications are supported by the affidavits of James Karebe, the Applicant's Manager, sworn on the respective dates together with a supplementary affidavit sworn on 23rd April 2026. 3.The applications are opposed through the Respondent's Replying Affidavit sworn on 7th April 2026 in which she avers that the Applicant has not filed an appeal against the impugned ruling, that the proclamation targeted household goods belonging to one of the directors against whom execution lawfully issued after the corporate veil had been lifted, that the Applicant deliberately failed to comply with earlier court orders requiring production of financial records and attendance of directors for examination, and that the applications are merely intended to delay the enjoyment of the fruits of a judgment delivered in her favour in July 2021. 4.She further contends that the decree is valid, that the Applicant has not offered security as required under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and that no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in lodging the appeal. Applicant's Submissions 5.The Applicant submitted that it only became aware of the contents of the ruling upon perusing the original ruling long after its delivery and immediately moved the court upon discovering that the trial court had lifted the corporate veil and held its directors personally liable. It argued that the delay of approximately four months has been satisfactorily explained and that the intended appeal raises arguable issues concerning the procedure followed before lifting the corporate veil and condemning the directors personally. 6.The Applicant further submitted that unless stay is granted, the attachment and sale of the directors' property will render the intended appeal nugatory. It maintained that it is ready and willing to furnish security in such terms as the court may direct. Reliance was placed on Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat vs. IEBC & 7 Others [2014] eKLR, Paul Musili Wambua vs. Attorney General & 2 Others [2015] eKLR, Halai & Another vs. Thornton & Turpin (1963) Ltd [1990] KLR and Gianfranco Manenthi & Another vs. Africa Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd [2019] eKLR. Respondent's Submissions 7.The Respondent submitted that judgment was entered in her favour in 2021 following the Applicant's failure to refund investment monies. She added that after numerous unsuccessful attempts to execute against the company, the trial court ultimately lifted the corporate veil upon finding that the Applicant's directors had failed to disclose the company's assets despite repeated court orders. 8.It was submitted that the Applicant participated throughout the proceedings and cannot now claim ignorance of the impugned ruling. The Respondent argued that no satisfactory explanation has been offered for failure to file the appeal within the statutory period and that the Applicant has not satisfied the mandatory conditions for grant of stay under Order 42 Rule 6. 9.She urged that litigation must come to an end and that she should finally enjoy the fruits of her judgment after almost ten years of waiting. Issues for Determination 10.Having considered the pleadings, affidavits and rival submissions, I find that the issues falling for determination are:-a.Whether the Applicant has established sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file an appeal.b.Whether the Applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal. Analysis and Determination 11.Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, is the law governing extension of time and grants the court discretion to admit an appeal out of time where good and sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The principles guiding the exercise of that discretion were settled in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 others [2014] eKLR, namely; the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the arguability of the intended appeal, prejudice to the respondent and whether the application was brought without undue delay. 12.In the present case, the impugned ruling was delivered on 12th September 2025 while the present application was filed in February 2026. The explanation advanced by the Applicant is that it only later became aware that the ruling had lifted the corporate veil and imposed personal liability upon its directors. 13.The Respondent disputed that explanation and maintained that the Applicant actively participated throughout the proceedings and was represented by counsel. 14.The record reveals that the Applicant participated in the proceedings leading to the impugned ruling and has not demonstrated any compelling reason why it could not obtain a copy of the ruling or file an appeal within the statutory period. 15.I find that the explanation offered does not satisfactorily account for the delay of over four months. While the draft memorandum raises arguable questions concerning the lifting of the corporate veil, arguability alone cannot excuse unexplained delay. 16.Regarding stay of execution, the applicable principles are contained in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Under the said rule, the Applicant must demonstrate substantial loss, make the application without unreasonable delay and furnish security for the due performance of the decree. 17.I note that the Applicant has expressed willingness to furnish security and contends that execution against its directors would render the intended appeal nugatory. Substantial loss must however be demonstrated by evidence and not merely asserted. 18.The Respondent, on the other hand, holds a valid decree arising from litigation that has been pending since 2019, with judgment having been delivered in 2021. She has made several unsuccessful attempts to execute the decree before obtaining orders lifting the corporate veil. It is trite that a successful litigant ought not to be unnecessarily deprived of the fruits of his or her judgment. At the same time, the court is enjoined to exercise its discretion in a manner that preserves the Applicant's undoubted right of appeal where circumstances so warrant. 19.Having carefully weighed the competing interests of the parties, I find that even though the Applicant has not offered a wholly satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the intended appeal, the intended appeal raises arguable issues touching on the propriety of lifting the corporate veil and imposing personal liability upon the Applicant's directors. 20.In the interests of justice and in order to balance the parties' respective rights, I am persuaded that this is a proper case for the exercise of the court's discretion in favour of the Applicant, albeit on stringent conditions designed to secure the Respondent's decree. 21.Consequently, I make the following orders:a.Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to file its appeal out of time. The Memorandum of Appeal shall be filed and served within fourteen (14) days from the date hereof.b.There shall be a stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 12th September 2025, the decree, warrants of attachment, proclamation notice and all consequential orders pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.c.The stay granted in (b) above is conditional upon the Applicant paying one-half (½) of the decretal sum to the Respondent and depositing the remaining one-half (½) in an interest-earning joint account in the names of the advocates for the parties within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.d.In default of compliance with order (c) above within the stipulated period, the stay herein shall automatically lapse without the necessity of any further order of the court.e.The costs of the two applications shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2026HON W A OKWANYJUDGE