Jyoti Structures Limited v UBA Kenya Bank Limited & another (Civil Application E038 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1719 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to stop UBA Bank from collecting a USD 2.58 million judgment against Jyoti Structures while the appeal is heard.
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 intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay of execution is not granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The appeal was arguable on the complaints raised regarding the scope of the domiciliation arrangement and the payments made.
The court applied the settled principle that an arguable appeal is not one that must necessarily succeed. Jyoti's proposed grounds - that the domiciliation arrangement was restricted to the Isinya-Suswa project and that all payments had been made - were sufficient to meet the arguability threshold despite the Bank's contention that the appeal was frivolous.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory without stay
The nugatory test was not satisfied because the Bank, as decree-holder, was able to refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded.
The Bank showed that Jyoti's principal place of business is outside the jurisdiction, it has no known assets within the jurisdiction, and insolvency proceedings had commenced against it in Mumbai, making recovery uncertain. Jyoti did not counter these claims. Conversely, the Bank demonstrated it was a stable multinational bank able to refund the decretal amount, so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if execution proceeded.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate both that the appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory if stay is declined.
- An arguable appeal need not be one that will necessarily succeed; it suffices that the grounds raised are not frivolous.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's application dated 13th December 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the 1st respondent (UBA Bank Limited)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (implied by the nature of the stay pending appeal application); the judgment does not cite the provision expressly
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the High Court judgment of 27th September 2024 pending appeal
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, particularly given its lack of known assets within the jurisdiction and the Bank's ability to refund the decretal amount
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.
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.
an applicant should demonstrate that it has an arguable appeal and that the appeal or intended appeal will be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are declined and the appeal eventually succeeds
Consequently, the applicant’s application dated 13th December 2024 fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jyoti Structures Limited v UBA Kenya Bank Limited & another (Civil Application E038 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1719 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1719/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.