Anthony Burugu & Co Advocates v Electro Watts Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 131 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4749 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped execution of a decree against a client's machinery, but only because he agreed to deposit the full amount owed in a joint account within 45 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether substantial loss was demonstrated
The court found substantial loss established because the attached assets were productive machinery whose sale before the appeal would be difficult to recover
The court reasoned that execution proceedings had commenced through auctioneers and that attachment of movable assets was imminent. If the goods, described as productive farming machinery and equipment used in the Applicant's business, were attached and sold before the intended appeal was heard, recovery of such assets might prove difficult or impossible, and their sale by public auction constituted a sufficient basis for finding substantial loss.
Whether there was unreasonable delay
The delay between the decree of 25th March 2026 and the application of 13th May 2026 was held not to be inordinate
The decree sought to be stayed was issued on 25th March 2026 and the application was filed on 13th May 2026. The court took the view that approximately seven weeks did not amount to inordinate delay, satisfying the second condition for the grant of stay under Order 42 rule 6(2).
Whether sufficient cause existed to grant stay
Having found prompt filing, demonstrated substantial loss and an ability to order security, the court held sufficient cause existed and granted a conditional stay
The court balanced the competing rights of the parties, holding that the ends of justice would be better served by a conditional stay rather than immediate execution. It relied on the overriding objective in Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and imposed the deposit of the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account as security, with automatic lapse on default.
Legal principles established
#- Execution of a lawful decree does not automatically amount to substantial loss; a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of his judgment
- An applicant for stay must show that the application was brought without undue delay, that substantial loss may result, and must give security for due performance of the decree
Court orders
#- 1.A stay of execution of the ruling and all consequential orders arising from the ruling delivered on 25th May 2025 pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal
- 2.The stay is conditional upon the Applicant depositing the entire decretal sum and taxed costs, if any, in an interest earning joint account in the names of the parties' advocates within forty-five days from the date hereof
- 3.In default of compliance with order (ii) within the stipulated period, the stay shall automatically lapse without further order of the court
- 4.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the High Court under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules read with the overriding objective in Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anthony Burugu & Co Advocates v Electro Watts Ltd (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 131 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4749 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC MISC E131 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4749/eng@2026-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.