Peter v Muniko & another (Civil Application E132 of 2026) [2026] KECA 2045 (KLR) (30 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 2045 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CIVIL APPLICATION E132 OF 2026 MS ASIKE-MAKHANDIA, JA SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 BETWEEN MWITA SIGIRIA PETER ....................................................................... APPLICANT AND JOSEPH MARWA MUNIKO ......................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT WILLIAM OLE MATA MUKUT ................................................. 2ND RESPONDENT (Being a hearing of an application on the question of urgency only) ******************************************** in HCCA No. E037 of 2024) RULING 1. The rst prayer in the application dated 28th July, 2026, was that “on the grounds contained in the certicate of urgency, this application be certied urgent and be heard exparte on the rst instance.” Otherwise, the substantive prayer was for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of intended appeal from the judgment and decree issued in Migori ELC (OS) 757 of 2017. 2. Pursuant to Rule 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the application was placed before me on 6th July, 2026 for certication. Upon full consideration of the application, I declined to certify it as urgent. 3. Dissatised with the decision, the applicant by a letter dated 24th August, 2026, and pursuant to Rule 49(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules, requested that the application be placed before me for interpartes hearing on the question of urgency only. 4. By a hearing notice dated 28th September, 2026, issued and served on the parties by this Court’s Registry, parties were informed that the question of urgency will be disposed of by way of written submission with no appearance of the parties and or their advocates. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2045/eng@2026-09-30 1
page 1 of 2
5. Pursuant to those directions, the respondent led a replying adavit dated 10th August, 2026, through Messrs. R. Miruka & Co. Advocates. However, the contents of this adavit are irrelevant for consideration on matters urgency, as it dwells on the substantive prayer in the application for stay execution. 6. The applicant justies the need to re-look at the initial refusal to certify the application urgent on the basis: that the respondents had since extracted a decree of the trial court and commenced its execution by way of eviction; that the respondents armed with an eviction order dated 13th August, 2025 and another order dated 22nd September, 2026, directing the OCS, Kehancha Police Station to provide security during the eviction can only mean one thing, that the eviction of the applicant is the ong. 7. Based on these developments, the applicant pleads with me to review my earlier order and certify the application as urgent. He maintains that he is in occupation of the suit property, the subject of the intended appeal. And for good measure, he adds, that in the event he is evicted, the appeal lying before this Court will be rendered a mere academic exercise. 8. As already stated, the respondents have oered no answer to these averments. They therefore remain uncontroverted and therefore true. 9. Ultimately and given the foregoing, I am persuaded to review and set aside my earlier order and in lieu thereof, I now certify the application urgent. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. ASIKE-MAKHANDIA ……………….………………… 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/2026/2045/eng@2026-09-30 2
page 2 of 2