Kamande v Khisa (Civil Application E470 of 2025) [2026] KECA 963 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to pause a High Court ruling on a Nairobi matrimonial home because the appellant couldn't show the appeal would become pointless without 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 appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the order of stay of execution of the High Court ruling is not granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The appeal is arguable because the applicant contended that the learned Judge failed, despite the two applications having been consolidated, to deal with her application, condemning her unheard, and erred in entertaining the respondent's application not anchored on the substantive suit.
The Court examined the memorandum of appeal and the grounds raised, including the allegation that the Judge dealt only with the respondent's application despite consolidation of the two applications, and that the respondent's application was not anchored on the substantive suit. Finding these contentions not frivolous, the Court was satisfied that the appeal was arguable for purposes of the stay test.
Whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted
The appeal will not be rendered nugatory because the impugned ruling balances the interests of both parties, giving each the option to vacate and collect half market rent from the other, and it is not claimed that the property will be disposed of.
The Court noted that both parties claim the property and that the learned Judge had endeavoured to balance the scales by permitting either party to occupy the property on payment of half market rent to the other pending determination of the suit. Since the applicant had the option to vacate and collect rent, and no risk of disposal of the property was claimed, the nugatory test was not met and the application failed.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal under the Court's Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction must demonstrate that the appeal is arguable and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 31st July 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The costs of the application shall be in the appeal
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 application for stay pending appeal; not expressly cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the High Court ruling delivered on 17th July 2025 pending determination of the appeal
The appeal was found arguable, but the applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory, as the impugned ruling balanced the parties' interests by giving either party the option to occupy the property and pay half market rent, and there was no claim the property would be disposed of
Costs
The costs of the application shall be in the appeal
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 parameters the Court considers in applications of this nature are whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal, and secondly whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory, should the application be declined and the appeal ultimately succeeds.
We are satisfied that the appeal is not frivolous. It is arguable.
In the result, the application dated 31st July 2025 fails and is accordingly dismissed. The costs of the application shall be in the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the applicant's application, first as dated 4th January 2024 and later as dated 4th January 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamande v Khisa (Civil Application E470 of 2025) [2026] KECA 963 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/963/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.