Unibee Construction Limited v Lorot & another (Suing as the legal administrator of the Estate of Lomerinyang Chepsien) (Environment and Land Appeal 24(B) of 2024) [2025] KEELC 507 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to pause a Kshs.5.7 million judgment because the applicant delayed nearly four months, showed no real loss, and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of close to four months in filing the stay application was explained
The delay was inordinate and unexplained, disqualifying the applicant from the discretionary relief
Judgment was delivered on 4/7/2023 with a 30-day stay expiring on 4/8/2023, yet the application was filed on 14/11/2023, nearly four months later. The law sets no maximum or minimum delay, but excessively long and unreasonable delay, without rational and convincing reasons, ordinarily leads to denial of leave. The applicant offered no reasons for the inordinate delay.
Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss
No substantial loss was demonstrated; execution of a money decree is lawful and does not by itself constitute substantial loss
The applicant merely stated that payment of the decretal amount would render the appeal nugatory without evidence of the respondent's inability to repay, nor any expression of fear that the respondent is a woman of straw. Conversely, the respondent showed the applicant might remove equipment from the jurisdiction. Substantial loss requires tangible and cogent evidence; mere execution of a lawful money decree does not suffice.
Whether the applicant offered adequate security
The applicant failed to offer specific security; a general statement of readiness to abide by conditions is insufficient
In a money decree the decretal amount must be secured by deposit, as a decree is like a debt owed to the successful litigant. Security is not intended to stifle appeal rights but to prevent vexatious delaying appeals. Other than stating readiness to abide by conditions, the applicant never specified what security or how much, nor deponed willingness to deposit the respondent's proposed Kshs.3,000,000 in an interest-earning account.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking a stay of execution must apply timeously, demonstrate substantial loss, and offer security for the due realization of the decree should the appeal not succeed.
- Execution per se does not amount to substantial loss; substantial loss must be demonstrated with tangible and cogent evidence.
- The legal duty is on the applicant to prove that the appeal would be rendered nugatory because the respondent would be unable to repay the decretal sum.
- Written submissions are not pleadings and cannot replace averments that must be made on oath.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 10/11/2023 seeking stay of execution is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
- 3.The appeal shall be heard on a priority basis
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Rules (appellate/stay jurisdiction of the ELC over an appeal from the lower court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Unibee Construction Limited v Lorot & another (Suing as the legal administrator of the Estate of Lomerinyang Chepsien) (Environment and Land Appeal 24(B) of 2024) [2025] KEELC 507 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (ELC appeal at Kitale; application dated 10/11/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/507/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.