Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNyeri Civil Case No. E163 of 2025 (as referenced)· [2026] KEELC 3558 (KLR)

Ekiru v Chepchirchir (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate o Christopher Koech Tirieto - Deceased) (Land Case Appeal E024 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3558 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
10 June 2026
LMLucy N. Mbugua
689 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court refused to pause a costs taxation because the litigant showed no real loss, delayed, and had already filed the same request in the Court of Appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Before the High Court at Nanyuki (Lucy N. Mbugua, J) was a notice of motion dated 23.3.2026 in which the appellant, acting in person, sought a stay of execution of taxation costs dated 14.8.2025 pending the hearing of his appeal in Nyeri Civil Case No. E163 of 2025 and his application in Court of Appeal Civil Application No. E110 of 2025. He complained that the respondent had issued a notice to vacate the suit premises by 11.6.2026 despite the pending appeal, and asked that status quo be maintained and taxation not proceed. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was an abuse of process given the parallel Court of Appeal stay application, that taxation cannot be stayed merely because an appeal is pending, and that the application was late and showed no substantial loss. The court applied the Order 42 Rule 6 criteria as set out in Selestica Limited v Gold Rock Development Ltd, holding that the applicant had not demonstrated the substantial loss he would suffer and had filed the application months after the bill of costs without explanation. Relying on Republic v Paul Kihara Kariuki ex parte Law Society of Kenya, the court further held that because taxation forms part of execution proceedings and the applicant had already sought a stay in the Court of Appeal, the present application duplicated that process and constituted an abuse of court process. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of taxation of the bill of costs pending appeal should be granted

Holding

The application was dismissed: no substantial loss shown, unexplained delay in filing, and the applicant already had a parallel stay application before the Court of Appeal

Reasoning

Applying Order 42 Rule 6 principles, the court found the applicant failed to demonstrate the substantial loss he would suffer if taxation proceeded, and the application was filed months after the bill of costs without explanation. Since taxation is part of execution proceedings and the applicant had already moved the Court of Appeal (Civil Application No. E110 of 2025) for stay, the present application was duplicative and an abuse of process.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution pending appeal is discretionary and requires sufficient cause, substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security
  • Pursuing the same matter by two concurrent court processes constitutes abuse of court process
  • Taxation forms part of execution proceedings, so a stay application at the appellate court covers it and a parallel application in the subordinate court is an abuse of process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 23.3.2026 seeking stay of taxation is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6

Cases cited (2)

  • Selestica Limited v Gold Rock Development Ltd
    [2015]
  • Republic v Paul Kihara Kariuki, Attorney General & 2 others Ex parte Law Society of Kenya
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ekiru v Chepchirchir (Suing as the legal representative of the Estate o Christopher Koech Tirieto - Deceased) (Land Case Appeal E024 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3558 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Nyeri Civil Case No. E163 of 2025 (as referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3558/eng@2026-06-10

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