Okuku v Oyieyo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2742 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Kisumu refused to release a Kshs. 200,000 court deposit because the appeal failed and the money must now settle the winning party's costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds for the release of the Kshs. 200,000/- deposited in court as security for costs of the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the security deposit of Kshs. 200,000/- should be released to the Applicant
The application was dismissed; the deposit is to be held in court and applied towards the Respondent's costs, interest and decretal sum
The deposit was made pursuant to Order 42 Rule 2(b) as a condition for filing the appeal out of time and staying execution. The Respondent averred that the appeal was dismissed with costs (yet to be taxed) and the lower court decree remains unsettled. The Applicant, who bore the burden, did not demonstrate the outcome of the appeal nor that the money had become due and refundable. Releasing the funds would defeat the purpose of the security.
Legal principles established
#- A party who deposits security for the due performance of a decree under Order 42 Rule 2(b) cannot obtain its release where the appeal has failed and the decree and costs remain unsettled; the security is available to offset the successful party's costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondent
- 3.The sum of Kshs. 200,000/- shall remain held in court, to be paid to the Respondent in partial settlement of the costs, interest, and the decretal sum
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; application concerns release of security deposited in court under Order 42 Rule 2(b) in relation to an appeal from the lower court
Relief refused
#Release of the deposit of Kshs. 200,000/- to be paid to the applicant's son, Jared Okuku Omondi, through his bank account
The Applicant failed to demonstrate what the outcome of the appeal was and that the deposit had become due and refundable to him
Costs
Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The money shall be held as deposited in court, to be paid to the Respondent in partial settlement of the costs, interest, and the decretal sum.
The application is dismissed. Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondent.
The deposit was made pursuant to the provisions of Order 42 Rule (2)(b), which provides that no order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (1) unless such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or orders as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the Applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, the parties' full names on the pleadings, or the specific court (High Court division) in which the ruling was delivered
Internal chronology appears anomalous: the application is dated 1st December, 2025, the Replying Affidavit sworn on 6th February 2026, heard on 6/5/2026, with a receipt showing deposit on 2023-12-13 following a security order of 16th October 2023; also possible typographical errors ('sufier', 'suficient') in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okuku v Oyieyo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2742 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2742/eng@2026-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.