Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment and Land Appeal E191 of 2024· [2025] KEELC 4321 (KLR)

Cherono v Kahama (Environment and Land Appeal E191 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4321 (KLR)

Not expressly stated in the judgment (trial court decision appealed from; application heard at Nairobi)
29 May 2025
1,719 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court allowed a stay of execution but only on strict conditions: deposit Kshs 800,000 security and file the appeal within 30 days, or the protection lapses automatically.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 25/11/24 brought under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 24/10/24 in which the trial court entered judgment of Kshs 1,600,000/- in favour of the respondent. The applicant, aggrieved and intending to appeal, argued the application was brought timeously, that no prejudice would befall the respondent, and that the appeal had high chances of success. The respondent opposed, asserting her right to the fruits of judgment, that no substantial loss was demonstrated, that no security had been offered, and proposed that any stay be conditional on deposit of the full decretal sum of Kshs 1,826,161.29 in a joint interest-earning account. Canvassed by written submissions, the court framed two issues: whether stay should be granted, and costs. Applying Order 42 Rule 6 and the authorities of Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, RWW v EKW, Tropical Commodities and James Wangalwa, the court found the 30-day delay not inordinate, but held that no substantial loss had been established. Weighing the applicant's right of appeal against the respondent's right to enjoy the judgment, and finding the appeal not idle, the court allowed the application but on terms: security of not less than Kshs 800,000/- deposited in a joint interest-earning account or in court within 15 days, filing of the record of appeal within 30 days, failing which the stay lapses automatically. Costs were awarded to the applicant but to abide the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay

Holding

A 30-day delay in filing the application was not inordinate

Reasoning

Judgment was delivered on 24/10/24 and the application filed on 25/11/24, a period of 30 days. The court found this delay not inordinate, satisfying the second condition under Order 42 Rule 6(2).

p. 3
02

Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss

Holding

No substantial loss was established

Reasoning

The applicant's complaint was that he was held responsible for delay in completing a land transaction caused by the lengthy digitization process at the Land Registry, processes beyond his ability or capacity. The court, however, found this did not establish substantial loss as understood in the authorities.

p. 4
03

Whether the appeal is arguable

Holding

The appeal was found not to be idle/arguable

Reasoning

The court perused the memorandum of appeal and noted grounds including an allegation that the trial court failed to consider the evidence of one party. It held the appeal could not be termed idle, supporting the exercise of discretion to grant a conditional stay.

p. 4
04

Balancing the parties' rights and costs

Holding

Stay granted on terms; costs to the applicant but abiding the appeal

Reasoning

The court invoked its discretion to allow the application but on conditions - security of not less than Kshs 800,000/- and filing of the record of appeal within 30 days - failing which the stay lapses automatically.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 requires substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree
  • The court must balance the successful party's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment against the appellant's right to have the appeal heard on merits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant shall within 15 days from the date of this ruling, give such security as shall be approved by the court but in any case, not less than Kshs 800,000/- for the due performance of the decree appealed from, deposited in a joint interest earning account in the names of the advocates of both parties or in court
  2. 2.The applicant is directed to file the Record of Appeal at least within the next 30 days from the date of the ruling
  3. 3.In default of either of the above the orders granted shall automatically lapse
  4. 4.The costs shall be borne by the applicant but shall abide the determination of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6 (including sub rule (2))
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XLI Rule 4(2)(b) (as cited in Butt vs Rent Restriction Tribunal)

Cases cited (4)

  • Butt -vs- Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1979]
  • RWW -vs- EKW
    [2019] eKLR
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & Others vs. International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation)
    [2004] 2 EA 331
  • James Wangalwa & Another vs. Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    [2012] eKLR
On appeal from
trial court (not named)
not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cherono v Kahama (Environment and Land Appeal E191 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4321 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment and Land Appeal E191 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4321/eng@2025-05-29

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