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
Ouma v Dave (Environment and Land Appeal E106 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5371 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court dismissed an application for stay of execution, holding the impugned ruling was a negative order incapable of execution and that substantial loss was not shown.
Gimnyigei & another (Administrators in the matter of the Estate of Hannah Jebii Tum - Deceased) v Saina & another (Administrators in the matter of the Estate of Alfred Kipkorir Gimnyigei - Deceased) (Civil Application E047 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1635 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The Court held that the prayer for stay of execution could not lie because the impugned ruling was a negative order. Although the applicants raised arguable issues, they failed the nugatory test because the estate had already been distributed, titles had been issued, and the disputed parcel no longer existed. The application was therefore overtaken by events and the Court could not act in vain.
Source excerpt
Ladak v Kenya Orient Insurance Company Ltd (Commercial Appeal E011 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12389 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the impugned judgment dismissing the suit was a negative order incapable of stay, and recasting the request as a stay of taxation or recovery of costs did not cure that defect. In addition, the applicant did not establish substantial loss, and the pending cross-appeal did not create jurisdiction to stay a non-executable order.
Source excerpt
Onguto (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Louis Onguto (Deceased)) v Abuya t/a J Louis Onguto Advocates (Civil Case 033 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 11563 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (23 July 2026) (Ruling)
The stay motion failed because the earlier refusal of a temporary oral stay did not finally determine the issue, so res judicata and functus officio did not apply; however, the applicant still did not satisfy the substance of Order 42 Rule 6. He remained in contempt, no sentence had yet been pronounced, and there was no positive executable order to stay. The court therefore held that the application was not well founded and dismissed it with costs.
Source excerpt
Munyi v Gikunju (Legal Representative of the Estate of Nephat Gikunju Kiringi (Deceased)) (Environment and Land Appeal E032 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4823 (KLR) (23 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the judgment of 19th March 2026 merely dismissed the appeal and was a negative order incapable of stay; the decree capable of execution was the subordinate court decree, not the appellate judgment. Even if stay were theoretically available, the Applicant did not prove substantial loss or offer security as required by Order 42 Rule 6. The prayer to preserve status quo was an improper attempt to circumvent the law on stay of negative orders.
Source excerpt
Njuguna v Guaranty Trust Bank (Kenya) Ltd & another (Civil Suit 187 of 2011) [2026] KEHC 10941 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the judgment dismissing the suit was a negative order incapable of stay, and the Applicant did not demonstrate the elements necessary for an Erinford injunction or preservatory order pending appeal. The Court found no basis to restrain the Respondent from exercising its lawful rights under a valid charge and statutory notice, especially where the balance of convenience favored the successful party.
Source excerpt
Nyakanga v Momanyi (Civil Appeal E051 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 13250 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)
The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution, holding that the impugned judgment was a negative order incapable of execution.
Nyagwansa v Tailor & 3 others (Land Case 82 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 4535 (KLR) (13 July 2026) (Judgment)
The applicant demonstrated that execution of the decree would cause substantial loss by dispossessing him of the suit land and affecting existing developments, and the respondent had positive executable orders despite the dismissal of the counterclaim. The court therefore granted stay pending appeal, conditioned on deposit of Kshs 5,000,000 as security within 90 days in a joint interest-earning account.
Source excerpt
Bundotich v Eboso (Civil Appeal E216 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 10157 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)
The application failed because the applicant did not place before the court the impugned ruling, order, or decree, and also filed the motion more than seven months after the ruling without any explanation. That non-compliance with the mandatory requirements governing an appeal record and the unexplained delay made the motion misconceived, incurably defective, and bad in law, so the court declined to consider the merits of the requested injunction.
Source excerpt
Interspar Ltd v Arm Cement PLC (In Liquidation) (Civil Application E039 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1239 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Ruling)
Although the intended appeal raised at least one arguable issue concerning the treatment of the consent order and the alleged error on review, the applicant failed to satisfy the nugatory limb. The impugned ruling was a negative order incapable of execution or stay, and the Court had no jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b) to stay the magistrate’s court decree or proceedings. Further, the applicant had elected to pursue review after filing a notice of appeal, so it could not use the present application to reopen the merits of the High Court judgment. The conjunctive test therefore failed and stay…
Source excerpt
Explore more
