Nakuru Canners Limited & another v Nyamweya & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 40 of 2019 & Civil Case 1588 of 1999 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2426 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court paused enforcement of a Kshs 129.55 million judgment, but only because the losing party agreed to deposit the full amount in a joint bank account.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application for stay was brought without unreasonable delay
The application was brought within a reasonable time, having been filed within a month of judgment
The court held that the delay contemplated under Order 42 Rule 6 relates to the timeliness of filing the stay application, not service or steps toward the appeal. Judgment was delivered on 9th October 2025, the notice of appeal lodged on 15th October 2025, and the application filed on 31st October 2025, all within a month, so there was no inordinate delay.
Whether substantial loss would result absent a stay
Substantial loss was established because the respondents gave no evidence of their financial capacity to refund the decretal sum
The decree was a money decree, and courts are slow to stay money decrees unless the decree-holder cannot refund. Although the respondents asserted financial capability, no affidavit of means or documentary proof was tendered; the 1996 capacity to raise funds did not reflect their present position. The applicants' apprehension was therefore not speculative.
Whether the security condition was satisfied
The applicants' readiness to furnish security as the court may deem appropriate was sufficient
Although the respondents contended the applicants had not specified security, the applicants expressed readiness and willingness to comply with conditions as to security. Citing Focin Motorcycle Co. Ltd v Ann Wambui Wangui, the court held the undertaking sufficient and fixed deposit of the decretal amount in a joint interest-earning account of the advocates as the appropriate security.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is likely where the decree-holder has not demonstrated capacity to refund a money decree should the appeal succeed, the evidential burden shifting to the respondent once a reasonable fear is expressed
- Arguability of an intended appeal is not a condition precedent for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6
- An undertaking by the applicant to provide security as the court may order is sufficient to satisfy the security condition for stay
Court orders
#- 1.Conditional stay of execution of the court's judgment dated 9th October, 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal
- 2.Stay granted on condition that the Defendant/Applicants deposit the sum of Kshs 129,550,000 in a joint interest-earning account in the names of Counsel for the Defendants/Applicants and the Plaintiffs/Respondents within forty-five (45) days from the date of the Ruling
- 3.Each Party to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 & Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, 2010
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.
- Policyholders Compensation Fund v Insurance Regulatory Authority & another[2026] KECA 1747 (KLR)25 Sept 2026followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nakuru Canners Limited & another v Nyamweya & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 40 of 2019 & Civil Case 1588 of 1999 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 2426 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 31st October, 2025 (arising from consolidated suits determined on 9th October 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2426/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.