AI-generated case brief

Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke

ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 30th September 2025 (arising from appeal against judgment in Nakuru MCELC 88 of 2020: Paul Thiga Ndegwa vs Nathaniel Muturi)· [2025] KEELC 8255 (KLR)

Muturi v Ndegwa (Environment and Land Appeal E046 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8255 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya

27 November 2025

MOM. A. Odeny

1,069 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

The Environment and Land Court in Nakuru dismissed a stay application because the applicant delayed over a year and showed no real loss from paying a money decree.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) on the Appellant/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 30th September 2025 seeking a stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Nakuru MCELC 88 of 2020 (Paul Thiga Ndegwa vs Nathaniel Muturi) pending the hearing and determination of his appeal. The Applicant deponed that the Respondent's counsel had demanded payment of Kshs 127,455 being taxed costs. The Respondent opposed, contending that only the decree on taxed costs was capable of being stayed, that the application was filed over a year after the Memorandum of Appeal and therefore after inordinate delay, and that substantial loss was not demonstrated on a monetary decree, offering instead to have the sum deposited in a joint account. Counsel for the Applicant argued that the appeal would be rendered nugatory and that the Respondent had continued construction at the suit premises; a prior similar application had been withdrawn because a parallel stay application was pending in the trial court, which was ultimately dismissed on 9th October 2024. The court framed the sole issue as whether the Order 42 Rule 6 threshold was met. Holding that the Applicant had gambled with parallel processes, filed the application after unreasonable delay, and failed to demonstrate substantial loss on what is a money decree refundable upon success, the court dismissed the application with costs to the Respondent.

Key legal issues

Whether the threshold in Order 42 Rule 6 for stay of execution pending appeal was met

Holding

The Applicant failed to satisfy the conditions: the application was filed after unreasonable delay (over a year after filing the Memorandum of Appeal) and no substantial loss was demonstrated on a monetary decree

Reasoning

The Memorandum of Appeal was filed on 24th September 2024 but the stay application was not brought until 30th September 2025. The Applicant had earlier filed a similar application in this court, withdrew it to pursue a parallel stay application in the trial court, which was dismissed on 9th October 2024. This amounted to gambling with parallel processes. The decree was monetary (taxed costs of Kshs 127,455), which is refundable if the appeal succeeds, so no substantial loss was shown.

p. 3

Legal principles established

What constitutes unreasonable delay in a stay application depends on the surrounding circumstances of each case; even one day after judgment could be unreasonable delay
Courts rarely but not never grant stay of execution of a money decree; each case depends on its circumstances

Court orders

1.The Notice of Motion dated 30th September 2025 seeking stay of execution of the judgment in Nakuru MCELC 88 of 2020 is dismissed
2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent

Authorities

Legislation

Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6

Cases cited (1)

Jaber Mohsen Ali & another v Priscillah Boit & another
[2014]

On appeal from: Nakuru Magistrates Court (ELC); Nakuru MCELC 88 of 2020 (Paul Thiga Ndegwa vs Nathaniel Muturi)
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

Caselaw, "Muturi v Ndegwa (Environment and Land Appeal E046 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8255 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 30th September 2025 (arising from appeal against judgment in Nakuru MCELC 88 of 2020: Paul Thiga Ndegwa vs Nathaniel Muturi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8255/eng@2025-11-27

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