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 the judgment· [2026] KECA 787 (KLR)

James Kayioni Kaikai & 1 other v Korinko Nkolia & 6 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
24 April 2026
957 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that a negative order striking out a petition cannot be stayed, and costs awards cannot support a stay application.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants moved the Court of Appeal at Kisumu by notice of motion under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking stay of execution of a ruling of the Environment and Land Court delivered on 15th October 2024 by Hon. Justice Emanuel Washe Mutwana, which struck out the applicants' petition with costs to the respondents. The applicants' stay application at the trial court had been dismissed, prompting the present application. They argued their appeal was arguable and would be rendered nugatory if the respondents executed costs assessed at Kshs. 739,000. The 6th and 7th respondents opposed, asserting the trial court's order was negative and incapable of being stayed and that no security had been offered; the other respondents did not participate. In a single judgment of the court, the panel (Asike-Makhandia, H.A. Omondi and L. Kimaru, JJAA) restated the settled Rule 5(2)(b) principles from Trust Bank Ltd v Investect Bank Ltd and Mwanthii v Mukami: an applicant must show an arguable appeal and that it will be rendered nugatory absent stay, and only a positive order or decree can be stayed. Holding that striking out a petition is a negative order incapable of execution, and that an award of costs cannot found a stay application, the court found the applicants failed at the first hurdle and dismissed the application with costs to the 6th and 7th respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a negative order (striking out a petition) is capable of being stayed under Rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

It is not. An order striking out a petition makes no positive order requiring anything to be done or restraining anything from being done, and is therefore incapable of being stayed.

Reasoning

The court applied settled jurisprudence that for a stay of execution to lie, the order or decree sought to be stayed must be positive. By striking out the applicants' petition, the trial court did not direct any act or restraint; it merely left the position as it was. An applicant who cannot cross the threshold of identifying an existing positive order capable of being stayed fails at the first hurdle of the Rule 5(2)(b) principles and need not address arguability or nugatory-ness substantively.

p. 2
02

Whether execution of assessed costs can be a basis for stay pending appeal

Holding

Costs cannot form the basis of an application for stay of execution pending appeal; the applicants' fear of execution of costs assessed at Kshs. 739,000 did not avail them.

Reasoning

The court held that costs usually follow the event and cannot be the foundation of a Rule 5(2)(b) stay application. Even where costs have been assessed and execution is feared, an applicant cannot convert an award of costs into a positive order for purposes of stay. The 6th and 7th respondents had in any event made no application to execute the ruling.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An order or decree sought to be stayed under Rule 5(2)(b) must be positive in nature; negative orders cannot be stayed.
  • An award of costs cannot form the basis of an application for stay of execution pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.
  • To succeed under Rule 5(2)(b) an applicant must show, first, that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and, secondly, that it will be rendered nugatory unless stay is granted.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules was dismissed
  2. 2.Costs awarded to the 6th and 7th respondents
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (original and discretionary jurisdiction to grant stay pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "James Kayioni Kaikai & 1 other v Korinko Nkolia & 6 others", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/787/eng@2026-04-24

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