Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNot stated in judgment (arises from HCCC No 171 of 2009)

Samsung Eletronics Limited v Paragon Eletronics Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) E110 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1938 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
21 November 2025
1,159 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed you cannot get a stay of execution against a ruling that merely dismissed your application, because only positive orders can be stayed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judgment decision of a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Karanja, M'inoti and Achode, JJA) delivered on 21st November 2025, dismissing a Notice of Motion dated 17th February 2025 brought under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking stay of execution of a ruling by Sifuna, J of 16th December 2024 in HCCC No 171 of 2009 pending an intended appeal. The underlying dispute concerned a High Court judgment of 10th November 2016 ordering the applicant to pay the respondent USD 54,300 with interest from February 2003; the Deputy Registrar calculated interest at USD 169,570.71, which the applicant sought to review. The High Court dismissed the review application, ruling that the proper remedy was an appeal under Order 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 7 days, and later dismissed the applicant's application for extension of time and stay. Before the Court of Appeal, the respondent objected that the ruling of 16th December 2024 was a negative order incapable of being stayed. The Court agreed, holding that the threshold question of the existence of a positive order precedes the twin rule 5(2)(b) limbs of arguability and nugatory effect. Reaffirming Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v E.P. Oranga and its subsequent affirmation in several Court of Appeal decisions, the Court held that a ruling merely dismissing an application, without directing any party to do or refrain from doing anything, is a negative order that cannot be stayed. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a negative order (dismissal of an application without positive directions) is capable of stay under rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

A negative order cannot be stayed; where the High Court merely dismissed an application without directing any party to do or refrain from doing anything, there is nothing to execute and the rule 5(2)(b) relief does not lie.

Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed the long-standing principle in Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v E.P. Oranga, later affirmed in Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman, Co-operative Bank of Kenya and Kenya Commercial Bank v Tamarind Meadows. The ruling of 16th December 2024 merely dismissed the applicant's application for enlargement of time and stay; no positive orders issued. None of the prayers sought an injunction. Consequently the threshold requirement of an order capable of being stayed was not met, and the twin limbs of arguability and nugatory-need need not be reached.

p. 3
02

The twin test for stay under rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

An applicant must demonstrate that the intended appeal is arguable and that, unless stay is granted, the appeal will be rendered nugatory.

Reasoning

The Court restated the settled test, citing Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 others, but held that the threshold question of whether a positive order exists precedes engagement with those two limbs. Having found no positive order, the application failed without determination of arguability or nugatory effect.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Negative orders, being orders that do not direct any party to do or refrain from doing anything, cannot be stayed
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must first satisfy the court that there exists a positive order capable of being stayed before the arguability and nugatory-variation limbs are considered

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 17th February 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
On appeal from
High Court
HCCC No 171 of 2009
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rules 1(2), 5(2)(b), 43, 44 and 49(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samsung Eletronics Limited v Paragon Eletronics Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) E110 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1938 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (arises from HCCC No 171 of 2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1938/eng@2025-11-21

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