Wainaina v Karongo (Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3619 (KLR) (5 May 2025) (Ruling)

Kenya Law

Automated Summary

Key Facts

The applicant, Michael Wamuongo Wainaina, sought a stay of execution pending appeal in the Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2025. The court granted the stay but required a Ksh 100,000 security deposit within 30 days and the appeal record filed within 45 days. The applicant argued for substantial loss due to potential eviction, timely filing, and financial constraints, while the respondent opposed the stay due to lack of security commitment.

Deceased Name

George Wainaina Wamuongo

Issues

Whether the Applicant has established cause to warrant a stay of execution pending an appeal

Holdings

  • Security for costs was mandated at Ksh. 100,000 to safeguard the Respondent's interests, balancing the Applicant's financial constraints with procedural requirements.
  • The court found the Application was filed without unreasonable delay, noting it was brought within a month of the impugned judgment's delivery.
  • The stay of execution was granted contingent on depositing Ksh. 100,000 within 30 days and filing the Record of Appeal within 45 days, with the stay lapsing if these conditions are unmet.
  • The court determined that the Applicant has established substantial loss if evicted from the suit property, as they and their siblings have resided there for over two decades with no viable alternative dwelling.

Remedies

  • The costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of the appeal. The court did not award costs at this stage but left it to be decided after the appeal is concluded.
  • The court granted a stay of execution of the trial court's judgment, restraining the Respondent from interfering with the Suit Property pending the appeal. This is conditional upon the Applicant depositing Ksh. 100,000 as security for costs within 30 days and filing the Record of Appeal within 45 days. Failure to meet these conditions will result in the stay lapsing.

Will Type

Other

Probate Status

Applicant is seeking to be recognized as administrator of the estate pending the appeal

Legal Principles

The court applied CPR Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) to determine the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal, balancing the applicant's right to pursue an appeal without irreversible harm against the respondent's right to enforce the judgment. Key considerations included demonstrating substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and provision of security for costs.

Succession Regime

Estate succession under Kenyan law

Precedent Name

  • Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates v East African Standard
  • Arun C Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia t/a A Raikundalia & Co Advocates & 2 others
  • James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
  • Shivabhai Nathabhai Patel v Manibhai Nathibhai Patel

Executor Name

Michael Wamongo Wainaina

Cited Statute

Civil Procedure Rules

Executor Appointment

Administrator of the Estate of George Wainaina Wamuongo (Deceased)

Judge Name

J. M. Onyango

Passage Text

  • Accordingly, I hereby grant the stay of execution on the condition that the Applicant deposits Ksh. 100,000/- as security for costs within thirty (30) days of this ruling and to file the Record of Appeal within 45 days, failing which the order for stay shall automatically lapse.
  • The purpose of the security needed under Order 42 is to guarantee the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on the applicant. It is not to punish the judgment debtor... This security will serve to safeguard the Respondent's right to enjoy the eventual fruits of the judgment, should the appeal not succeed.
  • In my view, the Applicant has successfully established two key considerations set out in Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. First, he has convincingly shown that he stands to suffer substantial loss should the execution proceed, loss that cannot be adequately remedied in the event of a successful appeal. Second, the Applicant has demonstrated that this Application was filed within a reasonable timeframe; less than a month after the delivery of the impugned judgment, thus dispelling any notion of undue delay.

Beneficiary Classes

Heir-At-Law