Rosa Gacheri Karani & another v Reuben Kinyua Mwithimbu & 7 others ( Stay of Execution Pending Appeal)

The court held that sufficient cause is incapable of exhaustive definition but is well demonstrated by bona fide and diligent steps to file an appeal within prescribed timelines. The applicants had lodged a memorandum of appeal in compliance with Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, and its grounds — including whether an injunction may issue against a registered owner in occupation — were ex facie arguable, satisfying the threshold under Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The applicants were admittedly registered owners entitled to statutory rights under Sections 24 and 25 of the Land Registration Act. An injunction should not issue against a registered proprietor absent exceptional circumstances (Nguruman). The injunction appeared to nullify the titles on an interlocutory basis and barred the 1st and 2nd applicants from their home, amounting to a disguised eviction; substantial loss therefore arose (Kiembeni Baptist).

Under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) the direction on security is discretionary but must be exercised reasonably, judiciously and objectively in light of the circumstances. Since the applicants were before the court on appeal against injunctions barring them from using properties registered in their names, the nature of the appeal did not warrant security, and ordering it would be antithetical to the interests of justice and equity.