Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal (Application) E038 of 2025· [2026] KECA 1779 (KLR)

Twaher Abdulkarim Mohamed v Mwathethe Adamson Kadenge

Court of Appeal
25 September 2026
996 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to stop execution of a Ksh 3.5 million costs decree against an MCA, ruling public office is no shield from paying court-ordered debts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Mombasa (Tuiyott, Laibuta and Ngenye-Macharia, JJA) on a notice of motion dated 8th May 2026 under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking stay of execution of a High Court ruling (Thande, J, 8th November 2024) in Malindi Election Petition No. 1 of 2014. The applicant, who lost the petition and was condemned to pay costs taxed at Ksh 3,526,503.30, chose to challenge the taxation by way of review rather than a reference. He sought stay of execution, including arrest warrants issued by the Deputy Registrar, and offered to deposit the decretal amount in court, arguing his appeal was arguable and that committal to civil jail would prevent him performing his functions as Member of County Assembly for Shella Ward. The court applied the settled twin tests: the intended appeal was held arguable, since the proposition that the right to file a reference does not arise until the taxing officer gives reasons is not frivolous. However, the nugatory limb failed: the decree was a money decree and no contention was made that the respondent could not repay it, and the court held that holding public office does not, by itself, shield a litigant from a decretal obligation. The respondent's objections to the propriety of the appeal were left to a future strike-out motion. The motion was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal is arguable

Holding

Yes - the proposition that the right to file a reference does not arise until the taxing officer gives reasons for the items objected to is arguable.

Reasoning

The High Court had reasoned that failure by a taxing officer to give reasons is no justification for not filing a reference under paragraph 11(2) of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order. The Court of Appeal held that, while that may seem correct at first blush, the competing proposition - that a reference cannot be filed until reasons are given - is not frivolous and meets the low arguability threshold.

p. 2
02

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted

Holding

No - the decree is a money decree, no contention was made that the respondent cannot repay, and public office does not shield the applicant from civil jail.

Reasoning

The court noted that for a money decree the ability of the decree-holder to repay is a central consideration; no case of the respondent being a man of straw was made. The applicant's plea that incarceration would imperil his constitutional office as an MCA and trigger a costly by-election was rejected: a party cannot rely solely on public position to avoid a decretal obligation.

p. 2
03

Respondent's objection to the propriety of the appeal (no leave under paragraph 11(3); notice of appeal not served)

Holding

Not determined at this stage; the demurrer must await a formal motion to strike out the appeal.

Reasoning

The respondent argued the appeal was improperly filed without leave under paragraph 11(3) of the Order and that the notice of appeal was not served. The court declined to strike out the appeal on the strength of those objections in a stay application, holding such challenges should be raised by a dedicated motion.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Both the arguability and nugatory tests must be met for stay under rule 5(2)(b), and the threshold for arguability is low - a single arguable point suffices.
  • For a money decree, absence of contention that the decree-holder cannot repay makes it difficult to satisfy the nugatory limb.
  • Holding public office is not, by itself, a ground for stay of a money decree; public officers must meet the settled parameters like any other litigant.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 8th May 2026 seeking stay of execution is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
On appeal from
High Court
Malindi Election Petition No. 1 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Twaher Abdulkarim Mohamed v Mwathethe Adamson Kadenge", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (Application) E038 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1779/eng@2026-09-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.