Raphael & another v Righa (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 5812 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court paused execution of a November 2024 judgment for only 180 days, telling the appellant to pursue her appeal without delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal
Stay granted for 180 days; execution would render the appeal nugatory, but the stay is time-limited to prevent indolence in prosecuting the appeal
The court reiterated the four conditions for stay: just cause, substantial loss, security, and absence of unreasonable delay, anchored on Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. While acknowledging the Appellants' right to the fruits of judgment, the court found that execution would render the appeal nugatory. Balancing the interests, it granted a stay limited to 180 days to incentivise speedy prosecution of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Legal principles established
#- The successful litigant in possession of a valid court judgment is entitled to the fruits of judgment unless exceptional circumstances exist
- The mere filing of a Notice of Appeal does not automatically warrant stay of execution
- The applicant bears the burden of proving substantial loss
Court orders
#- 1.An order staying the execution of the Judgment and Decree delivered on 22nd November 2024 be and is hereby granted for 180 days
- 2.Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the Appeal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Raphael & another v Righa (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 5812 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5812/eng@2025-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.