Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case (Kitale), judgment delivered 25/6/2025; application dated 11/7/2025· [2025] KEELC 7169 (KLR)

Portsmouth Holdings Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment and Land Case 7 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7169 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 October 2025
1,280 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale (C.K. Nzili, J) determines an application dated 11/7/2025 by the defendant, Stanley Gitari, seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 25/6/2025, by which the court awarded the plaintiff, Anthony Lucas Max, Kshs. 57,004,001 and declared it legal owner of the suit land, pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant relied on a notice of appeal, argued absence of unreasonable delay, willingness to provide security, risk of substantial loss and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The respondent opposed, noting the application did not specify whether the monetary or proprietary aspect of the decree was to be stayed, that no draft memorandum of appeal was attached, and that no substantial loss was demonstrated; it proposed deposit of the entire decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account if stay were granted. The court restated the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions - delay, substantial loss and security - to be satisfied conjunctively, plus sufficient cause to deprive a successful party of the fruits of its judgment. It found the applicant silent on substantial loss, unclear on what was to be stayed, and deficient in offering specific security. The court granted only a partial stay of payment of the special damages, conditional on the applicant depositing half of the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account in the names of both advocates within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses. No costs order was recorded.

Key legal issues

#
01

Conditions for stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

Substantial loss is the cornerstone; it must be shown with tangible and cogent evidence, and mere execution is not substantial loss

Reasoning

The court restated that stay under Order 42 Rule 6 requires delay, substantial loss and security, plus sufficient cause to keep a successful party from its judgment. The applicant was silent on what substantial loss it would suffer and did not specify which part of the decree it wanted stayed, so only a partial stay conditioned on security could issue.

p. 2
02

What constitutes reasonable delay

Holding

No fixed maximum or minimum delay; it depends on circumstances

Reasoning

The court noted the law sets no maximum or minimum period of delay; even one day may be unreasonable depending on the circumstances. This followed Jaber Mohsen Ali v Priscillah Boit. The application in this case was filed shortly after the judgment and delay was not the decisive factor.

p. 2
03

Nature of security for due performance

Holding

Security must be offered by the applicant, be of good faith and commensurate with the decree; size of the decretal sum alone is insufficient

Reasoning

Relying on Focin Motorcycle v Ann Wambui Wangui and Kenya Shell v Kibiru, the court held an applicant must offer security rather than leave its nature to the court. The applicant did not allege the respondent could not refund the decretal sum, so only conditional stay of the special damages was granted, tied to depositing half the decretal sum.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The four conditions under Order 42 Rule 6 must be met conjunctively
  • Security must be offered by the applicant, not left to the court to determine, and must be commensurate with the decree

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution limited to payment of the special damages
  2. 2.Applicant to deposit half of the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the two advocates within 45 days, failing which the stay orders shall lapse

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6

Cases cited (9)

  • Selestica Ltd -vs- Gold Rock Development Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • James Wangalwa & Another -vs- Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    [20212] eKLR
  • Silverstein -vs- Chesoni
    [2002] 1KLR 867
  • Jaber Mohsen Ali & Another -vs- Priscillah Boit & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Kenya Shell Ltd -vs- Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & Another
    [1982 -88] I KAR 1018
  • Samvir Trustee Ltd -vs- Guardian Bank Ltd
    Nairobi Milimani HCC No. 797 of 1997
  • RWW -vs- EKW
    [2019] eKLR
  • New Ocean Transport Limited & Lesk Investments Limited -vs- Anwar Mohamed Bayusuf Limited
    eKLR Civil Application 16 of 2014
  • Focin Motorcycle -vs- Ann Wambui Wangui & another
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Portsmouth Holdings Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment and Land Case 7 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7169 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (Kitale), judgment delivered 25/6/2025; application dated 11/7/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7169/eng@2025-10-22

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