Ngumi v Njuguna & 3 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed execution of a KSh 4.4 million judgment, ruling that filing an appeal without seeking a stay does not stop debt recovery.
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 Notice to Show Cause issued on 16th March 2026 is valid
- 2.Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants have demonstrated sufficient cause why execution of the decree should not proceed
Key legal issues
#Validity of the Notice to Show Cause and alleged breach of natural justice
The Notice to Show Cause was validly issued and not procured unprocedurally; the Defendants did not deny service of the Notice itself and had been served with the draft Decree and Bill of Costs.
The court found the Defendants participated in the processes preceding the Notice, having been served with the draft Decree and Bill of Costs, and did not deny service of the Notice to Show Cause itself. Their claim of selective service and breach of fair hearing therefore failed, and the Notice complied with Order 22 Rule 18 since the decree was over one year old.
Whether sufficient cause was shown to stop execution
No sufficient cause was shown; the missing court file and intended appeal were excuses, and the decree holder should enjoy the fruits of the judgment.
Despite filing a Notice of Appeal on 10th November 2022, the Defendants never sought stay pending appeal, never applied for typed proceedings, and filed no Record of Appeal. The file had been recovered over a year earlier yet they took no steps. The court associated itself with authority that rushing to court to stop execution on procedural grounds is not good faith.
Legal principles established
#- A Notice to Show Cause under Order 22 Rule 18 is a lawful tool giving a judgment debtor an opportunity to explain why execution should not proceed
- An intended appeal or pending appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution absent a stay order
- Where a decree is over one year old, execution requires issuance of a Notice to Show Cause under Order 22 Rule 18
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice to Show Cause is declared valid
- 2.Execution of the Decree to proceed
- 3.Costs awarded to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 22 Rules 18 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules (execution of decree; notice to show cause)
Relief refused
#Discharge or adjournment of the Notice to Show Cause sought by the 1st and 2nd Defendants
Defendants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause; their explanations amounted to excuses; they were served with the draft Decree and Bill of Costs and did not pursue stay or appeal diligently
Costs
Costs awarded to the Plaintiff
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.
I do not see the reason why the Plainti should be blocked from enjoying the fruits of the judgement and direct that execution of the Decree herein do proceed.
the impugned Notice to Show Cause is valid as the Defendants have failed to demonstrate sucient cause why execution of the Decree should not proceed
Sitting back and waiting for the execution to commence then rush to court to stop execution on account of an irregularity in procedure is not an act of good faith.
Costs awarded to the Plainti
Issues in the judgment
#Decree amount stated inconsistently within the judgment
Judge's name printed as 'CA OCHIENG' in coram but signed 'CHRISTINE OCHIENG'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngumi v Njuguna & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case 612 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5618/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.