Hannah Wairimu Kariuki v Joseph Maina Kariuki
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a stay application because all three legal conditions for a stay must be met, not just one.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
Not demonstrated; the Appellant did not show denial of fair hearing or imminent eviction
The court found the Appellant neither alleged she would be denied a fair hearing in the lower court nor that she faced eviction before the suit concluded; absent such prejudice she should litigate to finality and appeal only after finality in the lower court.
Unreasonable delay
No unreasonable delay; appeal filed within the period
The ruling appealed was delivered on 15-5-2026 and the appeal filed on 8-6-2026, which the court found prompt, so this limb of Order 42 rule 6(2) was satisfied.
Security for due performance
Not given; Appellant gave no commitment on the decree or costs
Given the dispute's 22-year pendency and attendant costs, the court found the Appellant's affidavit silent on how she would satisfy the Respondent's costs or the decree if unsuccessful, failing the third condition.
Legal principles established
#- All three conditions under Order 42 rule 6(2) for stay pending appeal must be satisfied cumulatively
Court orders
#- 1.The motion dated 3-6-2026 is dismissed with costs
- On appeal from
- Senior Principal Magistrate's Court at Kigumo
- Kigumo MCELC No. 1 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (stay of execution/proceedings pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hannah Wairimu Kariuki v Joseph Maina Kariuki", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLA E018 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5608/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.