Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court refused to release Kshs. 500,000 deposited as security, holding that a later subsisting order in a related matter redirected it to secure an intended appeal.
Mzame v Lalu (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Allen Warito Lalu – Deceased) & another (Civil Appeal E001 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 13260 (KLR) (2 September 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court ordered release of security held in a joint account after finding the Court of Appeal process had ended and no stay remained in force.
Ayan Automobiles Ltd v Muriithi (Civil Appeal E014 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12105 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The appeal had already been dismissed, the conditional stay had expired, and no further stay or superior-court restraint existed; therefore the security deposit no longer served its purpose and had to be released to the successful litigant. Pending third-party proceedings in the subordinate court and the fact that HFC Bank was not a party did not bar consequential orders implementing the Court's own security order.
Source excerpt
Mwangi v Kariuki & another (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4906 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that because the 1st respondent was already occupying the land and judgment had declared ownership in her favour, her enjoyment of that judgment should not be interrupted. However, since the title deed remained in the appellant's name, the court preserved the status quo by prohibiting cancellation or transfer of the title and ordering its deposit in court within 15 days, failing which the stay would lapse and the land would be transferred to the 1st respondent as decreed by the lower court.
Source excerpt
Nzioki v Kenya Institute of Management & another (Cause 144 of 2020) [2026] KEELRC 1972 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Applicant showed some basis for indulgence through its acknowledged debt and prior payment arrangements, but it failed to prove genuine financial incapacity with credible evidence such as audited accounts, bank statements, or cash flow projections. The proposed Kshs. 92,500 instalments were unreasonably low and would unduly delay the Claimant's recovery, so the court refused the proposal as filed and substituted a more balanced instalment structure.
Source excerpt
Anete v Ndungu (Commercial Appeal E009 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 8116 (KLR) (11 June 2026) (Ruling)
The applicant gave a reasonable explanation for delayed compliance, the delay was not shown to be deliberate or in bad faith, and the proposed security was adequate because the logbook and valuation evidence sufficiently protected the respondent’s interests. The court therefore exercised its discretion to enlarge time and accept the logbook in lieu of the cash deposit.
Source excerpt
Kalei & another v Mooke & another (Civil Appeal E003 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 8001 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the appeal had been dismissed, the decretal balance of Kshs. 250,000 remained in a joint account pursuant to conditional stay orders, no objection was filed, and the applicant was therefore entitled to release of the funds through his advocates.
Source excerpt
Kamau v Kuibita (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 158 of 2009) [2026] KEELC 2752 (KLR) (11 May 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the earlier decree of 21 November 2023 remained enforceable because there was no order staying execution, the Land Registrar and Surveyor had already implemented the excision and beaconing process, and the Defendant had no valid basis to resist compliance by remaining on the encroached land or refusing to sign mutation documents. The court therefore granted eviction, demolition, and title-rectification orders to give effect to its decree.
Source excerpt
Kabura v Munene & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 7 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2532 (KLR) (4 May 2026) (Ruling)
The motion was merited because the decree had already declared the 2nd defendant the lawful owner of the suit property, but implementation required the deputy registrar’s execution of transfer instruments; the court treated this as a necessary step to effectuate its judgment and avoid an order in vain.
Source excerpt
The court granted a stay of execution pending appeal, finding the Applicants showed likely substantial loss and no unreasonable delay, but ordered Kshs 3,000,000 security.
Explore more
