https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7720

**THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI** **MILIMANI LAW COURTS** **COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION** **HCCOMM CASE NO. 269 OF 2016** **UTILITY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED……….………………………..…..APPLICANT/DECREE HOLDER** **VS** **EKAA AFRICA LTD…….…….1ST RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR** **CHRISTINE OCHIENG** **OUKO..................................2ND RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR** **DENNIS MUGO ………….……….....3RD RESPONDENT/APPLICANT** **MORRIS WETINDI … 4TH RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTROR** **RULING** 1. Before this Court for determination is the Applicant’s application dated 23rd March, 2026, seeking inter alia, that pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order maintaining the status quo. Specifically, the order sought is that the 3rd Respondent/Applicant, together with its tenants, employees, agents and or servants be allowed to remain in quiet and peaceful possession of the suit premises being LR No. NGONG/NGONG/38847 ONGATA RONGAI OFF MAGADI ROAD, KAJIADO COUNTY without any interference whatsoever by the Decree Holder, their servants, appointed agents, staff and or any other persons in rem acting at their behest. 2. The Application is premised on the grounds set out on its face and the supporting affidavit sworn by the Applicant herein on 23rd March, 2026. The crux of the application is that the Applicant claims to be the registered owner and proprietor of LR No. NGONG/NGONG/38847 ONGATA RONGAI OFF MAGADI ROAD, KAJIADO COUNTY on which he has constructed housing units for rent. He states that the said property was initially charged to Equity Bank on 19th June, 2015, and is currently charged to Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB), with respect to which he is servicing a loan facility with the latter bank. He contends that the said property has never been offered as security for any loan with the Decree Holder to warrant it become a commodity for sale. 3. The Applicant avers that at no time, including during the alleged auction on 24th November, 2023, did the Decree Holder have possession of the title to the subject property. He states that during the hearing culminating in the ruling delivered on 12th March, 2026, by Honourable Justice Visram, allowing the Decree Holder’s application dated 14th February, 2024, declaring the sale of the subject property absolute, the Decree Holder’s advocates misled the court by suggesting that there existed an arrangement with KCB allowing the bank to recover its loan from the sale proceeds and subsequently discharge the property. According to the Applicant, this representation was false and resulted in KCB being condemned unheard. 4. He questions why, if the sale was conducted with the knowledge and participation of KCB, then why has the bank not discharged the title or facilitated transfer to the purported purchaser. Being dissatisfied with the ruling, the Applicant states that he lodged a notice of appeal dated 12th March, 2026, and requested for typed and certified proceedings vide the letter dated 16th March, 2026. 5. The Applicant further alleges that the purported purchaser has resorted to intimidation through the DCI Rongai police station to arm twist, threaten and or frustrate him to answer to unsubstantiated complaints. He recalls that on 19th March, 2026, he was contacted by DCI Rongai Police station regarding a complaint by a representative of Charlize Properties Limited alleging that the Applicant had denied access to the property, an allegation he denies stating that he does not reside on the premises. He contends that his intended appeal is with a probability of success and unless the orders sought are granted, he stands to suffer substantial loss, including the loss of his sole investment and source of income. He also avers that the tenants on the property will be prejudiced and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory. 6. In opposition to the application, the Decree Holder filed a Replying affidavit sworn by James Stuart-Smith on 13th April, 2026. The Decree Holder contends that the 3rd Judgment Debtor’s assertion that the suit property remains unsold is false and misleading. It is stated that the property was lawfully sold by public auction on 24th November, 2023, to M/s Charlize Properties Limited, and that the sale was confirmed by the court in its ruling of 12th March, 2026. 7. The Decree Holder further denies the allegation that the sale was procured through misrepresentation, stating that it was conducted in compliance with amended conditions of sale adopted by the court in June 2022, following partial satisfaction of the decree through sale of another property. It is asserted that the conditions of sale expressly provided for settlement of the outstanding loan due to KCB from the proceeds of sale, thereby safeguarding the bank’s interest. Consequently, the Decree Holder maintains that KCB was not misled or prejudiced in any manner. 8. It is further deponed that the title to the property remained in the name of the Judgment Debtor, as evidenced by official searches conducted in September 2021 and February 2026. 9. The Decree Holder argues that under the law governing judicial sales, a successful bidder acquires an equitable interest in the property upon payment of a purchase price, pending issuance of a certificate of sale by the court. They state that in this case, Charlize Properties Limited has already paid the full purchase price and has expressed readiness to settle the outstanding mortgage balance due to KCB. 10. The Decree Holder further contends that the 3rd Judgment Debtor no longer retains any proprietary interest in the property capable of protection by this court and that any resistance to handover should be directed at the purchaser, who ought to be joined as a party. It maintains that the 3rd Judgment Debtor has lost legal standing to challenge the execution process or impede the transfer of the property. 11. Regarding the intended appeal, the Decree Holder submits that the mere filing of a Notice of Appeal does not constitute a competent appeal before the Court of Appeal. It is asserted that no substantive appeal has been filed within the prescribed timelines, rendering the Applicant’s reliance on the intended appeal misplaced. 12. The Decree Holder also characterizes portions of the 3rd Judgment Debtor’s affidavit as irrelevant and scandalous arguing that they amount to personal attacks on Counsel rather than addressing the substantive issues before the court. It contends that the Applicant has engaged in a pattern of filing multiple applications aimed at delaying execution and frustrating realization of the decree, which arose from a judgment delivered on 11th August, 2021, and has never been set aside, reviewed or overturned on appeal. 13. It is further alleged that the 3rd Judgment Debtor continues to collect rental income from the property while simultaneously obstructing completion of the sale, thereby causing prejudice to both the Decree Holder and the purchaser. The Decree Holder concludes by asserting that the application is part of a long-running scheme intended to delay transfer of the property and defeat enforcement of the decree. 14. The 3rd Judgment Debtor/Applicant thereafter filed a further affidavit sworn on 7th May, 2026, in which he depones that tenants remain in occupation and possession of the suit property. He reiterates that as admitted by the Decree Holder, the property remains registered in the name of the 3rd Respondent while KCB remains the chargee. According to the Applicant, this position is inconsistent with the alleged sale and demonstrates that ownership and possession have not lawfully changed hands. The Applicant further asserts that the amended conditions of sale dated 8th May, 2023, required that the proceeds of sale be applied to offset KCB’s debt, following which the Bank would discharge the title to the purchaser within thirty days. He contends that KCB was unaware of any proposed transfer and questions why, if the sale took place, the title remains undischarged to date. 15. The Applicant also challenges the authority of Charlize Properties Limited to institute or participate in proceedings asserting that there is no evidence of instructions or authority demonstrating that Charlize Properties Limited had instructed the Decree Holder’s advocates to act on its behalf. He refers to correspondence dated 2nd April, 2026, in which the said advocates allegedly acknowledged the absences of such instruction. On that basis, he contends that pleadings and submissions purportedly filed on behalf of the purchaser were done without proper authority. 16. The Applicant further alleges that on 2nd April, 2026, unknown persons affixed a court order issued in Chief Magistrates Court Miscellaneous Application No. E856 of 2026 at the gate of the suit premises. He contends that the application before the Chief Magistrate’s Court was *sub judice*, as the subject matter was already pending before the High Court in HCCOMM No. 269 of 2016. According to the Applicant, the said application was filed ex parte and without disclosure of the ongoing proceedings, with the intention of obtaining breaking orders and police assistance to evict tenants. 17. He argues that the orders issued by the Chief Magistrate’s Court were irregular and made without jurisdiction. In particular, he contends that the subordinate court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction given that the value of the suit property is approximately Kshs. 38,000,000/-, which exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the magistrate’s court. He further faults the magistrate for failing to ascertain whether the matter was already pending before a superior court before issuing the impugned orders. 18. The Applicant also challenges the factual basis of the eviction orders. He contends that the orders referred to premises previously occupied by Dennis Mwenda Mugo, whereas the property was occupied by tenants. He argues that, the purported purchaser could not lawfully seek vacant possession through the magistrate’s court while issues of ownership remained contested before the High Court and intended to be pursued on appeal. He therefore maintains that the orders obtained were irregular and amounted to an attempt to circumvent the ongoing proceedings. 19. He further accuses the Decree Holder of failing to make full and frank disclosure and engaging in forum shopping by moving the subordinate court to defeat the cause of justice. According to the Applicant, such conduct amounts to an abuse of the court’s process. 20. The Applicant submits that maintaining the status quo is necessary to preserve the substratum of the intended appeal. He argues that if the tenants are evicted and the property transferred before the appeal is heard, and determined, the subject matter of the appeal will be irreversibly altered thereby rendering the appeal nugatory. He relies on the principle that courts may grant status quo orders to preserve the subject matter pending hearing and determination of a dispute. 21. The Applicant further explains that the appellate process has been delayed due to the absence of typed and certified proceedings. He contends that the intended appeal cannot proceed without the said proceedings and that, in the circumstances, an order preserving status quo is warranted. He also raises concerns regarding the legal status of the Decree Holder, Utility Capital Management Limited, asserting that its corporate status and directorship are unclear and ought to be clarified before further execution steps are undertaken. 22. In conclusion, the Applicant contends that unless the issues relating to the intended appeal, jurisdiction, and validity of the execution process are determined, there is a real risk of injustice if execution proceeds. He therefore urges the Court to preserve the prevailing state of affairs pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal. 23. The application was canvassed by written submissions. ***3rd Judgment Debtor’s submissions*** 1. The 3rd Respondent/Applicant’s identified two issues for determination, that is; whether the application for status quo orders is merited, and whether the Decree Holder has *locus standi* to act for and on behalf of Charlize Properties Limited, the alleged purchaser. 2. On the first issue, the Applicant submits that he remains the registered owner and proprietor of L.R. No. Ngong/Ngong/38847 Ongata Rongai off Magadi Road, Kajiado County, upon which he developed rental housing units, and that both he and his tenants are in occupation. 3. He contends that the property is currently charged to KCB, to which he continues to service a loan. While acknowledging the ruling of 12th March, 2026, declaring the sale absolute, he argues that the court was misled into believing that there existed an arrangement with KCB for settlement of its debt from the sale proceeds and subsequent discharge of the property. According to the Applicant, this misrepresentation denied KCB an opportunity to be heard. 4. The Applicant further submits that, being dissatisfied with the ruling, he filed and served a Notice of Appeal dated 12th March, 2026, and sought proceedings, and that the intended appeal is arguable with a high chance of success. The Applicant additionally asserts that if execution proceeds, he risks losing his property and rental income, thereby infringing his constitutional right under Article 40. 5. The Applicant argues that this Court has jurisdiction to grant status quo orders as a case management tool to preserve the subject matter pending determination of the dispute. He submits that such orders are intended to prevent prejudice and maintain the existing state of affairs, particularly in land matters, and need not meet the strict requirements applicable to injunctions. He relies on judicial authorities emphasizing that preservation orders are necessary to safeguard the substratum of a dispute, and to avoid rendering proceedings, including appeals, nugatory. 6. The Applicant further contends that the Decree Holder has engaged parallel execution proceedings both before the High Court and the Chief Magistrate’s Court, despite the latter allegedly lacking jurisdiction. He submits that the subordinate court proceedings were instituted without full disclosure of material facts and were intended to obtain eviction orders through misrepresentation, thereby constituting an abuse of the court process. 7. On the second issue, the Applicant challenges the Decree Holder’s *locus standi* to act on behalf of Charlize Properties Limited. He argues that the Decree Holder is not the purchaser and that no authority or letter of instructions have been demonstrated to allow it to act for the said purchaser. He refers to correspondence allegedly confirming the absences of such instructions and contends that any action purportedly undertaken on behalf of Charlize Properties Limited are therefore unlawful. 8. In conclusion, the Applicant submits that the balance of convenience favours preservation of the status quo pending determination of the intended appeal. He argues that execution at this stage would occasion substantial loss and prejudice to him and third parties’ tenants, while no prejudice would be suffered by the Plaintiff/Decree Holder because it neither owns the property nor constitutes a juristic person. The Applicant further asserts that although Charlize Properties Limited is fully aware of the proceedings, it has not formally appeared before the court to present its case. 9. The Applicant therefore urges the Court to intervene by issuing status quo orders sought in the application dated 23rd March, 2026, in order to preserve the substratum pending determination of the intended appeal. ***Decree Holder’s submissions*** 1. The Decree Holder begins by outlining the background of the dispute. It identifies a single issue for determination, that is; whether the 3rd Judgment Debtor/Applicant is entitled to an order of status quo pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal. It argues that the application does not meet the legal threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal. In particular, the Decree Holder, contends that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause, substantial loss, and the provision of security being the essential requirements for the grant of such relief. 2. The Decree Holder further submits that the Applicant has not established that he will suffer substantial loss if the orders sought are not granted. It argues that execution of a decree is a lawful process, and an assertion that the intended appeal may be rendered nugatory is insufficient. It also points out that the Applicant previously failed to comply with the court’s directions requiring the provision of security in the sum of Kshs. 15,000,000/= pursuant to the ruling of 30th August, 2021, and has once again failed to demonstrate any willingness to furnish meaningful security in the present application. In those circumstances, it contends that the Applicant is undeserving of the orders sought. 3. On competency of the intended appeal, the Decree Holder submits that no leave to appeal the ruling of 12th March, 2026, was sought or granted. While acknowledging that the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and annexed a draft memorandum of appeal, it argues that leave to appeal was neither sought orally at the time of delivery of the ruling, nor through a formal application within fourteen days. The Decree Holder relies on Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act as read together with Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules**,** submitting orders made under Order 22, rule 77 relating to confirmation of sale are not appealable as of right. Consequently, leave to appeal was mandatory, and the failure to obtain it renders the intended appeal incompetent. 4. The Decree Holder further submits that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate substantial loss as required under Order 42, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It argues that the Applicant has merely made bare assertions without any supporting evidence Reliance is placed on ***James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto [2012] 1094 KLR*** for the proposition that substantial loss must be proven. It also contends that the draft memorandum of appeal annexed by the Applicant is itself defective and incapable of sustaining the intended appeal. 5. In response to the Applicant’s contention that the Decree Holder is a non-juristic person and that the auction sale was non-existent, it submits that such arguments are misconceived. It contends that foreign entities have the right to access Kenyan Courts and enforce legal rights. It maintains that the auction sale was conducted on 24th November, 2023, and Charlize Properties Limited validly purchased Title No. Ngong/Ngong/38847, the suit property. It further asserts that the amended conditions of sale were properly placed before the court, served upon all parties, and adopted as orders of the court. 6. The Decree Holder also highlights the magnitude of the decretal debt stating that the Judgment Debtors owed sums in excess of Kshs. 100,000,000/= inclusive of costs and interest. It submits that the two auction sales realized Kshs. 41,500,000/=, and that the decretal amount remains unsatisfied. It therefore argues that the Applicant should not be permitted to frustrate execution, as the Decree Holder is entitled to enjoy the fruits of its judgment. 7. On the issue of security, the Decree Holder relies on ***Grace Akinyi Ngoge v John Abuya Isanda & 2 Others******[2014] KEELC 578 (KLR)*** tosubmit that the Applicant has shown no willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree. It contends that should the Court be inclined to grant any form of stay, such orders ought to be conditional upon the deposit of at least fifty percent (50%) of the decretal sum. 8. In conclusion, the Decree Holder submits that the present Application is part of a long running scheme intended to deny the Decree Holder the fruits of its judgment. The Court is therefore urged to dismiss the application with costs. ***Analysis and Determination*** 1. I have carefully considered the application dated 23rd March, 2026, the affidavits filed both in support and opposition, the annexures on record, and the rival submissions by counsel. In my view, a single issue arises for determination, namely; **whether the 3rd Respondent/Applicant has satisfied the threshold for the grant of an order maintaining status quo pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.** 2. The Applicant seeks an order preserving the prevailing state of affairs in relation to LR No. NGONG/NGONG/38847 Ongata Rongai off Magadi Road, Kajiado County pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal against the ruling delivered on 12th March, 2026, which declared the sale of the said property absolute. He maintains that he remains the registered proprietor of the suit property, that the property title is still charged to Kenya Commercial Bank and that he and his tenants, remain in possession and occupation of the premises. He further contends that the intended appeal raises arguable issues touching on the legality of the auction sale, the alleged non-disclosure of KCB’s interest in the property, and jurisdictional concerns. He therefore urges the Court to preserve the substratum of the intended appeal so as not to render the same nugatory. 3. The Decree Holder opposes the application, contending that it is a further attempt to frustrate execution of a lawful decree that has remained unsatisfied since judgment was delivered on 11th August, 2021. It maintains that the suit property was lawfully attached, sold by public auction on 24th November, 2023, pursuant to court sanctioned execution proceedings and that the sale was properly confirmed by the ruling of 12th March, 2026. The Decree Holder further submits that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate substantial loss, has not offered security for due performance of the decree, and has not established the existence of a competent appeal particularly, in view of the absence of leave to appeal where required. 4. Although the application is framed as one seeking maintenance of status quo, in substance, it seeks to halt or suspend the effect of execution arising from the ruling delivered on 12th March, 2026. It ought to therefore be considered in light of the principles governing stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules while bearing in mind the preservatory nature of status quo orders. The Applicant has strongly relied on the authorities of ***Republic v National Environment Tribunal Ex Parte Palm Homes Limited & Another [2013] eKLR, TSS Spinning & Weaving Company Ltd v NIC Bank Limited & Another [2020] eKLR, Kenya Airline Pilots Association (KALPA) v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited & Another [2020] eKLR and Thugi River Estate Limited & Another v National Bank of Kenya Limited & 3 Others [2015] eKLR*** in support of the proposition that status quo orders are preservatory in nature and may issue under the court’s inherent jurisdiction in order to preserve the substratum of litigation pending determination of disputes. I entirely agree with those principles. Indeed, courts possess inherent jurisdiction to preserve the subject matter of litigation, such jurisdiction must be exercised cautiously so as not to undermine finality of litigation or lawful execution. 5. However, I must equally guard against misuse of preservatory remedies in a manner that undermines finality of litigation and lawful execution processes. A party cannot evade the legal requirements for stay of execution by relabeling the relief sought as maintenance of status quo. 6. The Applicant relies on the fact that the title remains registered in his name and continues to reflect a charge in favour of Kenya Commercial Bank. While that position is not in dispute, the amended conditions of sale dated 7th June, 2023, placed before the Court, expressly acknowledged the existence of the KCB charge and provided for settlement, under clause 4(b), that the outstanding amount due to KCB together with accrued interest would be offset first from the proceeds of sale prior to discharge and that KCB would thereafter discharge the property to the purchaser within thirty days from payment of the discharge amount. 7. The amended conditions of sale are important because they demonstrate that KCB’s interest was contemplated and addressed during the execution process. The terms expressly contemplated that the property would be sold subject to satisfaction of the outstanding charge from the proceeds of sale. The Applicant therefore cannot entirely sustain the argument that KCB’s interest was wholly concealed from the court. 8. Nevertheless, the Court notes that despite the auction having taken place on 24th November, 2023, there is no evidence of completion of transfer, the property still remains registered in his name and the KCB charge apparently remains undischarged. While this raises practical concerns regarding completion of the transaction, it does not negate the legal effect of confirmation of sale. 9. Under Order 22, rule 79 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where immovable property is sold in execution and the sale becomes absolute, the property is deemed to vest in the purchaser from the date of confirmation. It provides that:- **“79. Certificate to purchaser [Order 22, rule 79]** **Where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser, and such certificate shall bear the date and the day on which the sale became absolute.”** 1. This legal position was expressly recognized in the ruling delivered on 12th March, 2026, which confirmed the sale, thereby vesting equitable interest in the purchaser. Consequently, although legal transfer documentation may not yet have been perfected, the purchaser acquired equitable and enforceable interests upon confirmation of the sale. 2. The Applicant’s challenge to the legality of the auction. The draft memorandum of appeal annexed by the Applicant raises several grounds including allegations that the sale was irregular and non-existent, that there was no valid notification of sale under Section 96(2) of the Land Act, that no proper auction took place on 24th November, 2023, and that the Learned Judge erred in confirming the sale despite alleged violations of the Auctioneers Rules. However, the ruling of 12th March, 2026, already addressed the legality of the sale and expressly found that the execution process had been conducted lawfully, that the property was duly attached, advertised and sold by public auction and that no successful application had been made under Order 22, rules 75 or 79 to set aside the sale. This Court cannot, at this interlocutory stage, sit on appeal over those findings which remain valid and binding unless set aside on appeal. 3. The argument that the Decree Holder lacks legal capacity is equally without merit. The material before the Court confirms that Utility Capital Management Limited remains an incorporated entity. The fact that it may no longer hold a financial services licence does not extinguish its corporate existence or its legal existence. 4. The Applicant further questioned whether the Decree Holder’s advocates had authority to act on behalf of Charlize Properties Limited. 5. The Applicant’s challenge to the authority of the Decree Holder’s advocates to act for the purchaser, Charlize Properties Limited, does not affect or invalidate the underlying decree or the validity of the execution process already sanctioned by court. The Decree Holder, as holder of the decree, was entitled to pursue execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules irrespective of whether the purchaser separately instructed counsel. 6. I have also considered the Applicant’s allegations concerning the proceedings before the Chief Magistrate’s Court in MCCCMISC/E856/2026. The Applicant contends that the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction and that the proceedings were commenced through material non-disclosure in order to obtain breaking orders and police assistance. These allegations are serious. However, no substantive application challenging or setting aside those proceedings is presently before this court. This Court cannot conclusively determine the legality of those proceedings within the confines of the present application. Those issues ought to be raised in appropriate proceedings before the relevant forum. 7. Turning on substantial loss, the Applicant contends that the suit property constitutes his only investment and source of income and that eviction of tenants before determination of the intended appeal would irreparably alter the substratum of the dispute. He further argues that third party tenants who are not parties to the proceedings stand to suffer prejudice. The Decree Holder on its part relies on ***James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto [2012] eKLR*** for the proposition that execution is a lawful process and that mere commencement of execution does not amount to substantial loss. Substantial loss must be assessed contextually. In the present matter, the evidence before the court shows that the property is an income generating residential development occupied by tenants. The Applicant has also demonstrated that an intended appeal has already been initiated through a Notice of Appeal filed on 12th March, 2026, together with requests for typed proceedings and payment of court fees. 8. While the Court acknowledges that displacement of tenants may create inconvenience and potential loss, it must also be noted that execution is a lawful process and, without more, does not amount to substantial loss. The Applicant has not placed before the Court cogent evidence demonstrating that any loss suffered would be irreparable or incapable of compensation. 9. Moreover, the conduct of the Applicant cannot be overlooked. The record shows that a conditional stay had previously been granted, requiring provision of security in the sum of Kshs. 15,000,000/=, which was not complied with. In the present application, the Applicant has again failed to offer any security as required under Order 42, rule 6(2)(b). Security serves to balance the competing rights of the parties and to protect the successful litigant from prejudice. 10. The importance of security was emphasized in ***Grace Akinyi Ngoge v John Abuya Isanda & 2 Others [2024] KEELC 578 (KLR),***where the court held that security protects the successful litigant against prejudice arising from delay in execution. 11. Ultimately, the Court must balance the competing interests: the Applicant’s right of appeal and the Decree Holder’s right to enjoy the fruits of its judgment. In the circumstances of this case, where the decree remains unsatisfied, the sale has been confirmed by a valid court order, and the Applicant has failed to meet the legal requirements for stay, the balance tilts in favour of permitting execution to proceed. 12. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the threshold for grant of an order maintaining the status quo pending appeal. The application dated 23rd March, 2026, is therefore dismissed with costs. 13. Orders accordingly. ***Delivered, Dated and Signed virtually this 2nd day of June, 2026*** **RHODA RUTTO** **JUDGE** **In the presence of;** **Court Assistant: Wabwire** **Mr. Owino for Plaintiff/Decree Holder** **Mr. Otieno for the 2nd & 3rd Respondent**