Ecotact Limited t/a Iko Toilets v Nairobi City County [2019] KEELC 4934 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court of Kenya dismissed a county government's request to pause execution of a judgment because it neither proved substantial loss nor offered security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2) were met
The application was made without undue delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss and did not offer security; the application was dismissed.
The court set out the three settled principles for stay pending appeal: no undue delay, substantial loss, and security. It accepted the application was brought timeously but found the applicant failed to show the respondent could not compensate it if the appeal succeeded, and noted the applicant had neither stated an intention to furnish nor furnished security. The security condition is mandatory, so the application failed.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution requires demonstration of substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and offer of security; mere assertion of substantial loss is insufficient.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 6th December 2018 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 63(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ecotact Limited t/a Iko Toilets v Nairobi City County [2019] KEELC 4934 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4934/eng@2019-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.