Wang’ombe & another v Credit Bank & 3 others (Civil Application E034 of 2026) [2026] KECA 891 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to pause a Ksh 2 million judgment against landowners because their planned appeal lacked merit, so Credit Bank can now enforce it.
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, if not stayed, the appeal would be rendered nugatory
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants had demonstrated an arguable appeal under Rule 5(2)(b)
On consideration of the proposed grounds of appeal, the applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal; the application necessarily failed on the first limb.
The court rehearsed the settled twin principles for stay pending appeal as elaborated in prior decisions of the Court, particularly Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter. An arguable appeal is one that is not frivolous or trifling, but need not ultimately succeed. Examining the proposed grounds, the court found the applicants had not crossed the arguability threshold. Since both limbs must be satisfied, the court declined to consider the nugatory limb, and dismissed the application with costs.
Legal principles established
#- To obtain stay under Rule 5(2)(b), an applicant must sequentially satisfy the twin tests that the appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory absent stay; failure on the first limb disposes of the application
- The Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction is original and discretionary; the discretion is wide and unfettered but must be exercised judiciously
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 3rd March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- HCCC No. E003 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment, decree and all consequential orders of 11th February 2026 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
The applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal, the first of the twin principles for stay under Rule 5(2)(b); having failed the first limb, the nugatory limb need not be considered
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st 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 must sequentially surmount the twin barrier of demonstrating that; first that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable meaning that it is not frivolous or trifling but not one that must ultimately succeed and secondly that the appeal will otherwise be rendered nugatory unless the order sought is granted
In the end, we come to the conclusion that the application dated 3rd March 2026 has no merits and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The applicants' and the 2nd-4th respondents' names are not given anywhere in the judgment, and no case number is assigned to the application itself, limiting precise party and case identification
The judgment states the applicants were successful in obtaining the principal prayers yet were condemned to pay costs and damages; the deponent's affidavit is dated 3rd March 2026 but the respondents' replying affidavit is sworn 9th March 2026 while the record also refers to the same supporting affidavit without a reply date conflict - the damages figure is also printed as 'ksh 2000,000' which may be a typographical ambiguity
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wang’ombe & another v Credit Bank & 3 others (Civil Application E034 of 2026) [2026] KECA 891 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 3rd March, 2026 (arising from intended appeal against Nakuru HCCC No. E003 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/891/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.