Joyce Wangui Wachira & 6 others v Kevin Wambugu & 8 others

KENNEDY GITONGA ............................................................... 12TH RESPONDENT PRISCILLA CHEBII .................................................................... 13TH RESPONDENT JOSPHAT MICHOMA ................................................................ 14TH RESPONDENT BEATRICE NJERI ....................................................................... 15TH RESPONDENT ROBERT KIPTANUI .................................................................. 16TH RESPONDENT MARGARET MUGURE ............................................................. 17TH RESPONDENT PATRICK GATHU ...................................................................... 18TH RESPONDENT STEPHEN MBURU ..................................................................... 19TH RESPONDENT PIERA KAGWIRA ...................................................................... 20TH RESPONDENT DOLLY WAWIRA ........................................................................ 21ST RESPONDENT ZIPPI MUMBI .............................................................................. 22ND RESPONDENT JAMES GITHINJI ........................................................................ 23RD RESPONDENT ZIPPI MUMBI .............................................................................. 24TH RESPONDENT DIANA WANYAGA .................................................................... 25TH RESPONDENT ESTHER NYAMBURA ............................................................... 26TH RESPONDENT JOSEPHINE MWORIA ............................................................... 27TH RESPONDENT GRACE GATHONI ..................................................................... 28TH RESPONDENT MARY MUMBI ............................................................................ 29TH RESPONDENT AND NCBA BANK KENYA ....................................................... 1ST INTERESTED PARTY EQUITY BANK KENYA .................................................. 2ND INTERESTED PARTY STANBIC BANK OF KENYA .......................................... 3RD INTERESTED PARTY I&M BANK KENYA ......................................................... 4TH INTERESTED PARTY (Being an application for stay of proceedings and execution of the Orders from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (N. Mwangi, J.) dated 21st March 2025 in HCCOMM No. E204 of 2025) RULING 1. In their application dated 17th November 2025, the applicants seek an order of stay of execution of the orders issued by the High Court at Nairobi on 21st March 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. They also seek an order of stay of all further proceedings in High Court HCCCOMM No. E204 of 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. In the order made on 21st March 2025, the High Court issued a Mareva injunction freezing the applicants’ bank accounts held https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1240/eng@2026-07-03 2

page 2 of 4

at the banks named as interested parties, based on an application by the respondents dated 18th March 2025. 2. The basis on which the respondents sought, and were granted the interim Mareva injunction orders by the High Court on 21st March 2025, was that they were the victims of an elaborate fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the applicants Specifically, that the respondents invested in the 4th applicant, Pesapata Ventures Limited, by individually placing money deposits on the promise of periodic payouts with interest, on which the applicants defaulted. 3. It is the applicants’ case that their subsequent application dated 26th March 2025 before the High Court in which they sought an order to set aside the orders made on 21st March 2025 was also dismissed. Hence the present application underpinned by a Notice of Appeal dated 15th April 2025. 4. We heard the present application on 23rd February 2026. Learned counsel Miss. Murage held brief for Mr. Wachira for the applicants. Despite notice of hearing, there was no appearance for the respondents or the interested parties. We have considered the application, the affidavit in support, the replying affidavit and the rival submissions against the established principles as stated, for instance, in Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui vs. Tony Ketter and 5 Others [2013] KECA 378 (KLR). 5. The applicants urge that the intended appeal is arguable and raises substantial questions of law and fact; that there was insufficient evidence linking the applicants to the alleged fraud or misappropriation of funds; that moreover, there was no basis for the High Court to lift the corporate veil in as far as the applicants, other than the 4th respondent, are concerned. In concluding, as we do, that the intended appeal is not frivolous based on those grounds, we bear in mind that "an arguable appeal is not one which must necessarily succeed, but one which ought to be argued fully before the court, one which is not frivolous". (See Joseph Gitahi Gachau & Another vs. Pioneer Holdings (A) Limited & 2 Others, Civil Application No. 124 of 2008)[2009] KECA 201(KLR). 6. On the nugatory aspect, the applicants assert that the impugned orders are causing them hardship on account of their inability to access their bank accounts and the risk of default on their financial obligations; and that the orders are occasioning them irreversible financial and operational damage. We however note that the impugned orders were granted on interim basis pending the hearing of the matter substantively before the High Court, in effect preserving the subject matter of the suit pending adjudication of the dispute. We are not persuaded that the requirement to demonstrate that the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory has been met. 7. In as far as the prayer for stay of proceedings before the High Court is concerned, there is no demonstration of exceptional circumstances that would warrant that. As the Court stated in Waithaka vs. Tribunal Appointed to Investigate the Conduct of the Honourable Lady Justice Lucy Njoki Waithaka & Another; Kenya Magistrates & Judges Association (Interested Party) (Civil Application 8 of 2020) [2020] KECA 571 (KLR) stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental judicial action which interferes with the right of any party to conduct litigation. It impinges on the right of access to justice, right to be heard without delay and the right to a fair trial. 8. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed with costs to the respondents. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026. S. GATEMBU KAIRU, FCIArb, CArb. ................................. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1240/eng@2026-07-03 3

page 3 of 4

JUDGE OF APPEAL P. NYAMWEYA ................................. JUDGE OF APPEAL E. C. MWITA ................................. JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. Signed Deputy Registrar. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1240/eng@2026-07-03 4

page 4 of 4