Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 19th November 2025)· [2026] KEELC 1484 (KLR)

Karani v Shunem Academy Limited & another (Environment and Land Case 70 'B' of 2021) [2026] KEELC 1484 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land/first-instance matter, Nakuru)
12 March 2026
LKL Komingoi
1,170 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 High Court at Nakuru, delivered virtually on 12th March 2026 by L Komingoi J, determined a Notice of Motion dated 19th November 2025 by the 2nd Defendant, Grace Mukami Mwaniki, seeking stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 19th September 2025 pending her intended appeal. The application was brought under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and was opposed by the Plaintiff/Respondent, Lawrence Karani, through written submissions. The Applicant argued that the application was filed without inordinate delay and that she would suffer substantial loss, particularly as the propriety of imposing personal liability on her for an essentially corporate obligation was a central issue in the intended appeal, and offered to deposit the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account. The Respondent countered that the 60-day delay was unexplained and that he was ready, willing and able to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed. The court framed two issues: whether the motion was merited, and costs. Applying Order 42 rule 6(2) and Peter Ondade t/a Spreawett Chemist v Josephine Wangari Karanja, the court held that a 60-day delay was not inordinate and that substantial loss had been demonstrated. Balancing the parties' interests, it granted stay of execution pending the intended appeal, conditioned on the 2nd Defendant depositing Kshs 1,500,000/= in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses automatically, with costs of the application borne by the 2nd Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Notice of Motion for stay of execution pending appeal is merited

Holding

The application is merited; stay was granted on condition that the Applicant deposits the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days.

Reasoning

The court applied the Order 42 rule 6(2) conditions. It found a 60-day delay not inordinate, and accepted that the Applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution issued, the propriety of her personal liability for a corporate obligation being a central issue in the intended appeal. Balancing the parties' interests, the court conditioned stay on the deposit of the decretal sum as security.

p. 3
02

Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay

Holding

A delay of sixty days between judgment (19th September 2025) and filing of the application (19th November 2025) is not inordinate delay.

Reasoning

The Respondent argued the application came 60 days after judgment with no explanation. The court, after reviewing the Applicant's affidavit, held the delay fell below the threshold of unreasonableness required to defeat a stay application under Order 42 rule 6(2)(a).

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A delay of sixty days in filing an application for stay of execution does not, on its own, constitute inordinate/unreasonable delay.
  • The three conditions under Order 42 rule 6(2) - substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and provision of security - must be satisfied before stay of execution is granted.
  • Where the respondent is able and willing to refund the decretal sum, the court should balance the interests of both parties when considering stay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution granted against the judgment delivered on the 19th September 2025 and the consequential decree arising therefrom pending the hearing and determination of the intended Appeal
  2. 2.Condition: the 2nd Defendant to deposit the decretal sum of Kshs 1,500,000/= in a joint interest-earning account in the name of counsel for the plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant within forty-five (45) days from the date of the ruling; in default, the stay orders lapse automatically
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be borne by the 2nd Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of KenyaSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesRule 7

Cases cited (7)

  • National Industrial Credit Bank Limited v Aquinas Francis Wasike & Another
    Nairobi Civil Application No. 238 of 2005 (UR)
  • RWW v EKW
    (2019) eKLR
  • Jaber Mohsen Ali v Priscillah Boit & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Machira t/a Machira & Co Advocates v East Africa Standard (No.2)
    (2002) KLR 63
  • Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University
    (2015) eKLR
  • Peter Ondade t/a Spreawett Chemist v Josephine Wangari Karanja
    (2006) eKLR
  • Bult v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    (1982) KLR 417
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya; Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karani v Shunem Academy Limited & another (Environment and Land Case 70 'B' of 2021) [2026] KEELC 1484 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 19th November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1484/eng@2026-03-12

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