Shreeji Wholesalers & Hardware Limited v Prasun Construction Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) E251 of 2024) [2025] KECA 921 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya

23 May 2025

ASAsike-Makhandia

353 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

Kenya's Court of Appeal agreed to fast-track Shreeji Wholesalers' case after nine of its vehicles faced auction, showing urgency can be won even after an initial refusal.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This is a short interlocutory ruling, not a full appellate judgment, delivered by Asike-Makhandia, JA at Kisumu. Shreeji Wholesalers & Hardware Limited, through Messrs. Bosire Gichana & Company Advocates, moved the Court by a Notice of Motion dated 25th February 2025, seeking certification of the application as urgent among other prayers. On 3rd May 2025 the judge, on perusal of the papers, declined to certify the application as urgent. The applicant's advocates then wrote to the Deputy Registrar invoking rule 49(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules, asking that the issue of urgency be heard inter partes. The judge directed that the question be disposed of by written submissions only, without the appearance of counsel. At the time of the ruling only the applicant's submissions were on record; the hearing notice had been served on Messrs. Onsongo Advocates, presumed to act for the respondent, who elected to file nothing. The judge therefore took the request as unopposed. The applicant demonstrated, through the proclamation, warrants of attachment, warrants of sale and the auctioneer's Bill of Costs, that on 9th May 2025 the respondent proclaimed nine of its motor vehicles. Satisfied that there was imminent danger of execution of the decree and no contestation of the facts, the judge vacated the earlier refusal and certified the application as urgent. No costs order was made. The document does not bind lower courts and does not disturb any decision on the merits.

Key legal issues

Certification of urgency

Holding

The court vacated its prior refusal and certified the application as urgent upon being satisfied of imminent danger of execution of the decree.

Reasoning

The applicant exhibited the proclamation, warrants of attachment, warrants of sale and the auctioneer's Bill of Costs to demonstrate that nine motor vehicles had been proclaimed on 9th May 2025. The respondent, though served, filed no opposition, so the facts stood uncontested and the court found imminent danger of execution warranting urgent certification.

p. 2

Legal principles established

Court orders

1.Vacated the earlier order declining to certify the application as urgent
2.Certified the application as urgent

Authorities

Legislation

Court of Appeal Rulesrule 49(5)

Jurisdiction invoked: Rule 49(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shreeji Wholesalers & Hardware Limited v Prasun Construction Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) E251 of 2024) [2025] KECA 921 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/921/eng@2025-05-23

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.