Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2026] KEELC 88 (KLR)

Karanja (Suing through her Agent M/s Eunice Muthoni Warui) v Mugambi (Environment and Land Case 411 of 2010) [2026] KEELC 88 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (court not expressly named in the extract)
22 January 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
1,041 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 High Court refused to pause a 2016 money judgment because the applicant waited nine years and had no notice of appeal on record.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant/applicant brought a notice of motion dated 10th March, 2025 under Order 22 Rule 22(1), Order 42 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking stay of execution of a decree arising from a judgment delivered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on 25th May, 2016, pending an appeal said to be in the process of being filed, or alternatively stay of all dealings in the matter. The applicant contended he was denied an opportunity to participate in the trial; his application of 12th January, 2024 to set aside the judgment was dismissed on 8th April, 2024, prompting a notice of appeal dated 15th April, 2024. The plaintiff/respondent opposed through her agent Eunice Muthoni Warui, deposing that no appeal had been preferred, that a notice to show cause had resulted in orders of 8th November, 2024 requiring payment of Kshs.400,000 within 45 days and the balance of Kshs.1,871,305 in six monthly instalments, which the applicant failed to honour, and that the application was brought ten months after the ruling with unclean hands. The court framed a sole issue: whether the applicant was entitled to stay of execution pending appeal. Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2) and the RWW v EKW decision, the court required proof of no unreasonable delay, substantial loss, and security. It found a delay of about 9 years since judgment, constituting serious inordinate delay, and noted there was no notice of appeal against the 2016 judgment on record, leaving the court with nothing to determine. The notice of motion was dismissed in its entirety with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the defendant/applicant is entitled to stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

The application was dismissed: the approximately 9-year delay was inordinate and no notice of appeal existed on record, so the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6 were not met.

Reasoning

The court applied Order 42 Rule 6(2), requiring absence of unreasonable delay, substantial loss, and security. Judgment was delivered on 25th May, 2016 and the application was filed on 10th March, 2025, a delay of about 9 years with no explanation. Moreover, no notice of appeal against that judgment was on record, leaving the court with nothing to determine. Balancing the interests of the successful party, who should not be deprived of the fruits of judgment, the application totally lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate that the application was filed without unreasonable delay, that substantial loss will result, and that security for costs will be given

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 10th March, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 22(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1)(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A

Cases cited (1)

  • RWW V EKW
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 22 Rule 22(1), Order 42 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karanja (Suing through her Agent M/s Eunice Muthoni Warui) v Mugambi (Environment and Land Case 411 of 2010) [2026] KEELC 88 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/88/eng@2026-01-22

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