Plaintiff/Respondent v 2nd & 3rd Defendants/Applicants (Stay of Execution Pending Appeal)

The court held that sufficient cause is the launch pad for stay under Order 42 Rule 6(1). Since the Applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and later availed evidence of a record of appeal, sufficient cause was established. The court further held that the arguability of the intended appeal is for the Court of Appeal alone, so the Respondent's submissions on that point were misplaced and premature.

Relying on Kenya Shell Ltd v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru and James Wangalwa v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto, the court held that execution of a lawful decree alone is not substantial loss. However, because the decree entailed cancellation of the Applicants' title and their eviction, and because the Plaintiff, as registered proprietor under Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act, could alienate the property and dissipate the substratum of the appeal, substantial loss was established.

The court weighed the Applicants' Article 48 right of access to justice against the Respondent's entitlement to the fruits of a lawful decree, invoking Article 27's equality guarantee. Citing Arun C Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia and Nduhiu Gitahi v Warugongo, it held security must be reasonable and tangible, and ordered Kshs.1,000,000 into an escrow account, failing which the stay lapses.