Kiptanui & another (Both Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Abraham Kiptanui) v Ruto (Environment & Land Case 356 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 502 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Applicants have demonstrated that they are entitled to orders of stay of execution pending their intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6
Stay refused. The dismissal of the suit was a negative order incapable of stay, and even applying Order 42 Rule 6, no substantial loss was demonstrated.
The court noted the suit was dismissed with costs, so the only execution would be on costs, and the Applicants never asserted they could not recover those costs if the appeal succeeded. Even hypothetically applying the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions, the Applicants failed to show what substantial loss they would suffer; if they succeeded on appeal, title would simply be changed, so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory.
Legal principles established
#- An order of dismissal with costs is a negative order incapable of being stayed; where only execution is on costs and the applicant has not shown the costs would be irrecoverable, no substantial loss is demonstrated
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 17th May, 2024 seeking stay of execution of the judgment of 16th May, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal); the court retained seisin over its own judgment
Relief refused
#Stay of the judgment entered on 16th May, 2024 and the resultant decree pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
The suit was dismissed with costs, a negative order incapable of being stayed; the only execution would be on costs, and the Applicants did not show they could not recover costs if the appeal succeeded, nor that they would suffer substantial loss rendering the appeal nugatory
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the 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.
To begin with, it is important to note that the Applicants' suit was dismissed with costs. This was therefore a negative order which is incapable of being stayed.
For these reasons, I find that the Applicants' application is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment text does not state the suit or case number of the matter; the application is identified only by its date of 17th May, 2024
Respondent argues the Applicants had no capacity to sue before obtaining letters of administration (deceased's estate), but the ruling does not resolve or make any order on that point
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiptanui & another (Both Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Abraham Kiptanui) v Ruto (Environment & Land Case 356 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 502 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (Makueni ELC suit; application dated 17th May, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/502/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.