Bosek v Singo’ei (Civil Application E229 of 2025) [2026] KECA 248 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to pause a Kshs. 24 million judgment because the winner could repay the money if the appeal later succeeded.
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 the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay of execution is not granted
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal was arguable on grounds including jurisdiction of the High Court over a matter said to belong to the Environment and Land Court, non-accrual of cause of action, and re-writing of the contract
The court applied the settled test that an arguable appeal need not be one that would necessarily succeed. The memorandum of appeal raised complaints about jurisdiction, accrual of the cause of action and the trial Judge re-writing the contract, which sufficed to establish arguability for the purposes of a stay application.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay
No nugatory effect was shown; the respondent demonstrated he was a person of substance able to refund the Kshs. 24,000,000.00 if the appeal succeeded
Nugatory-ness depends on whether execution, if allowed to proceed, is reversible. The respondent asserted, and the court accepted, that he is a leading vehicle importer with car yards, and his ability to pay the disputed sum in the first place demonstrated capacity to refund. The applicant's contrary claim failed, so the second limb of the stay test was not satisfied and the application was dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and that, if it succeeds, it would be rendered nugatory without a stay
- An arguable appeal is not one that will necessarily succeed
- The nugatory-ness inquiry depends on whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible, and the respondent's ability to refund the decretal amount is relevant
Court orders
#- 1.Application for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 14th March 2025 dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over an intended appeal from the High Court; application for stay of execution pending appeal
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the High Court judgment of 14th March 2025 awarding Kshs. 24,000,000.00
The applicant demonstrated the appeal was arguable but failed to show it would be rendered nugatory without a stay, as the respondent showed ability to refund the judgment amount if the appeal succeeded
Costs
It is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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.
The applicant is required to demonstrate that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and that if it eventually succeeds, it would be rendered nugatory without a stay having been given.
Whether the appeal or intended appeal will be rendered nugatory, depends on whether what is sought to be stayed, if allowed to happen, is reversible.
Consequently, the application fails. It is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bosek v Singo’ei (Civil Application E229 of 2025) [2026] KECA 248 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/248/eng@2026-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.