Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNanyuki CM ELC No 109 of 2018 (appeal) – Notice of Motion dated 18.9.2025· [2025] KEELC 7707 (KLR)

Thuku v Muriithi & another (Environment and Land Appeal E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7707 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 November 2025
1,065 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court granted a partial stay of execution: the appellant must pay the principal awarded now, but the disputed Kshs.5 million interest claim waits until the appeal is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, appearing as Applicant/Appellant, moved the Environment and Land Court at Nanyuki by Notice of Motion dated 18.9.2025 seeking stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 21.10.2024 in Nanyuki CM ELC No 109 of 2018, in which the 1st Respondent was awarded Kshs.752,027/- plus interest at commercial rates and costs. The Applicant's appeal challenges the award of interest at commercial rates, but execution was underway: Dancy Auctioneers had proclaimed the Applicant's goods for Kshs.5,565,803/- plus auctioneers' fees. The Applicant offered security including a title deed, log book or deposit of Kshs.752,000/-. The 1st Respondent opposed, arguing that the Order 42 Rule 6 criteria were unmet, that inability to refund had not been demonstrated, that the Applicant had not shown prejudice, that the delay of over 11 months was unexplained, and that security was raised only from the bar. Justice Lucy N. Mbugua considered the authorities on stay of execution and held that the crux of the appeal is the disputed award of interest at commercial rates from 2007, whose computation producing over Kshs.5 million was a recent phenomenon; the delay was therefore excusable and the respondent did not refute the auctioneers' proclamation. The ends of justice warranted a stay on the interest issue, but not as to the decretal sum. The court granted a conditional stay: the Applicant to pay Kshs.752,027/- within 45 days, the Respondent to provide account details within 14 days failing which the sum may be deposited in court, and costs of the application to abide the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of over 11 months in bringing the application was explained

Holding

The delay was excused because the actual computation of the amount claimed, over Kshs.5 million, was a recent phenomenon

Reasoning

The judgment awarded interest at commercial rates from 2007 but the figures were unknown at the time of delivery. Execution via Dancy Auctioneers demanding Kshs.5,565,806/- plus fees arose recently, so the applicant could not have applied earlier; the respondent did not refute the proclamation.

p. 3
02

What conditional stay terms would balance the parties' interests

Holding

A conditional stay was granted: the decretal sum of Kshs.752,027/- to be paid within 45 days while the disputed interest remains subject to the appeal

Reasoning

The crux of the appeal is the award of interest at commercial rates from 2007, which ballooned the demand to over Kshs.5 million. The ends of justice warrant staying execution on the interest, but there is no reason the principal sum should not be paid.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to grant a stay of execution pending appeal is discretionary and requires sufficient cause, balancing the interests of both parties under Order 42 Rule 6
  • A stay should be granted so that an appeal is not rendered nugatory, exercising discretion so as not to prevent an appeal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant to pay the sum of Kshs.752,027/- to the respondent within 45 days from the date of the ruling
  2. 2.The respondent to avail to the applicant details of the account in which Kshs.752,027/- is to be deposited within 14 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the applicant may deposit the amount in court within the 45-day period
  3. 3.Stay of execution granted conditionally pending appeal
  4. 4.The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XLI rule 4(2)(b) (as cited in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal)

Cases cited (4)

  • Selestica Limited v Gold Rock Development Ltd
    [2015] KLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
  • Amal Hauliers Limited v Abdulnasir Abukar Hassan
    [2017] eKLR
  • Dickson Muricho Muriuki v Timothy Kagondu Muruiki & 6 others
    [2013] eKLR
On appeal from
Nanyuki Chief Magistrate's Court (ELC)
CM ELC No 109 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Thuku v Muriithi & another (Environment and Land Appeal E025 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7707 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nanyuki CM ELC No 109 of 2018 (appeal) – Notice of Motion dated 18.9.2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7707/eng@2025-11-06

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