Sauti Savings & Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Omuse & 8 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E760 of 2025) [2026] KECA 818 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to pause a multi-million shilling judgment against Sauti SACCO because bare claims of financial harm, without evidence, don't justify a stay.
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 appeals are arguable
- 2.Whether, if the appeals succeed, they would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeals
The appeals were arguable; the applicant had filed notices of appeal and the respective appeals, and perusal of the pleadings showed the appeal was not frivolous.
The Court exercised its discretion under Rule 5(2)(b) and applied the settled Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui principles: a single bona fide arguable ground suffices, and the Court must not make definitive findings. On the facts, given the total judgment amount and the respondents' failure to adduce evidence of their means to repay, the appeal was found not frivolous or unarguable.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay
The nugatory limb failed. Bare assertions of financial destabilisation and the respondents' inability to refund, unsupported by evidence such as accounts, do not discharge the applicant's burden.
The applicant claimed that payment of the large decretal amount would destabilise it as a SACCO and that the respondents could not refund, but produced no accounts or evidence of the extent of destabilisation, and the respondents gave no evidence of means. Applying the Kinyanjui principles, the Court was not satisfied that a successful appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was refused.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both twin principles of arguability and nugatory-ness; an applicant alleging that payment will destabilise it financially must adduce evidence, such as accounts, in support of that claim.
Court orders
#- 1.Notice of Motion dated 17th December, 2025 dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment & Land Court, Nairobi
- CC No. E106 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 31st January 2025 and the ruling of 12th August 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeals
The applicant satisfied the arguability limb but failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; no accounts or evidence supported the alleged financial destabilisation or the respondents' inability to refund
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 17th December, 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
The principles for our consideration in the exercise of our unfettered discretion under Rule 5(2)(b) to grant an order of stay are now well settled. First, an applicant has to satisfy the Court that there is an arguable appeal, and secondly, the applicant must demonstrate that unless an order of stay is granted the appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory.
On the first limb of arguability, we have come to the conclusion that, given the total judgment amount awarded and the fact that the respondents have not adduced any evidence on their means to repay the sums to be paid if the appeal succeeded, the appeal is not frivolous or unarguable.
No accounts were produced by the applicant to support the destabilisation theory. We are therefore not satisfied that the applicant has shown that a successful appeal on judgment and decree will be rendered nugatory if no stay is granted.
Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 17th December, 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the plaint as dated 11th March, 2022 while describing the parties as having purchased the plots in 1994 and filed suit in 2021; the suit is referred to as CC No. E106 of 2021, an apparent internal inconsistency in dates.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sauti Savings & Credit Co-operative Society Limited v Omuse & 8 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E760 of 2025) [2026] KECA 818 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 17th December, 2025 (Rule 5(2)(b) application in intended appeals Civil Appeals No. E020 of 2026 and E024 of 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/818/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.