Titus Makhanu & Associates Advocates v Hall Equatorial Ltd
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether, absent stay, the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory
- 3.Whether stay of further proceedings in the High Court should be granted
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The grounds - failure to determine the application of 17th March 2025 and the preliminary objection on jurisdiction before the ruling - were not idle and required interrogation on appeal.
The applicant faulted the High Court for declining to first determine its application challenging the proceedings and its preliminary objection questioning jurisdiction. The Court found these grounds bona fide, requiring full consideration, and thus sufficient to establish arguability without needing a draft memorandum of appeal.
Nugatory value of a monetary decree
Where the respondent's ability to refund the decretal sum is doubtful and unrebutted by evidence, execution would render a successful appeal nugatory.
Applying Kenya Hotel Properties v Willesden and Safaricom v Laiser, the Court held that a monetary decree is not automatically non-nugatory. The respondent gave only a bare assertion of financial capacity, with no documentary proof, and bore the onus of rebutting the applicant's apprehension of inability to refund.
Stay of proceedings
The prayer for stay of proceedings failed; no prejudice or nugatory effect from continuation of proceedings was demonstrated.
Citing Meta Platforms v Samasource, the Court reiterated that stay of proceedings gravely curtails a party's right to prosecute or defend a case and requires clear demonstration that proceedings ought not continue or special circumstances. None were shown here.
Legal principles established
#- An arguable appeal is one raising at least a single bona fide issue deserving full consideration, not one that must succeed.
- The burden of demonstrating financial capacity to refund a decretal sum rests on the respondent resisting stay.
- Stay of proceedings will not be granted absent clear demonstration that proceedings ought not continue or special circumstances.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of the ruling delivered on 27th March 2025 in Milimani HCCC No. E115 of 2024 pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Milimani)
- HCCC No. E115 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent appellate jurisdiction to grant stay pending intended appeal (rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction implied; not expressly cited in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Stay of further proceedings in Milimani HCCC No. E115 of 2024
No demonstration that continuation would prejudice the applicant or render the appeal nugatory; stay of proceedings is a grave curtailment of a party's right to prosecute or defend a case
Costs
The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
an arguable appeal is not one that must ultimately succeed, but one that raises at least a single bona fide issue that deserves full consideration on appeal
The burden rested with the respondent to demonstrate, through evidence, that it has financial capacity to refund the decretal sum if required to do so.
Accordingly, the notice of motion dated 15th April 2025 is allowed to the extent that there shall be an order staying the ruling delivered on 27th March 2025 in Milimani HCCC No. E115 of 2024
The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Date of the preliminary objection stated inconsistently within the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Titus Makhanu & Associates Advocates v Hall Equatorial Ltd", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application E247 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2264/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.