Waichari (Suing as an Administrator of the Estate of Francis Albert Waichari) v Kairu (Practicing as Kimani Kairu & Co Advocates) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3751 (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 this Court should grant the order of stay of execution as prayed in the Notice of Motion dated 18/06/2024
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss and sufficient cause; the application was dismissed
The Court set out the four requirements: sufficient cause, substantial loss, security, and filing without unreasonable delay. The Applicant's mere apprehension of execution did not amount to substantial loss since execution would be based on a lawful order of the court. No appeal had been preferred against the decree, and the Court doubted whether stay is even available to a litigant who has not appealed. Having failed the substantial loss threshold, security need not be considered as both conditions must be met.
Whether stay of execution is available to a litigant who has not appealed against the decree
It is doubtful; granting such a stay would effectively stay the primary decree through the back door
The Court noted there was no pending appeal; the Applicant sought stay without preferring an appeal. Relying on Odunga's Digest, Sophia Lenya and Raymond M. Omboga, the Court held that a party cannot obtain a stay of a decree that is not the subject of an appeal, as that would allow indirect stay of an unchallenged decree.
Whether the Court could alternatively order payment of the decretal sum in instalments under Order 21 rule 12(2)
The Court has such discretion but the Applicant never invoked it and showed no sufficient reason for inability to pay in a lump sum
Order 21 rule 12(2) permits the Court, on application by the judgment-debtor, to order payment by instalments or postponement upon sufficient cause. The discretion must be exercised judiciously and only when invoked. The Applicant made no such application and offered no evidence beyond apprehension of execution; mere apprehension does not attract the discretion.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of the jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution; without evidence of it a stay should not issue
- A litigant who has not appealed against a decree cannot obtain a stay of that decree; doing so would be obtaining stay through the back door
- Both conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) - substantial loss and security - must be satisfied for a stay application to succeed
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 18/06/2024 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(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution); alternative recourse noted under Order 21 rule 12(1) and (2)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the Judgment dated 06/06/2024 for at least 90 days
The Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss and sufficient cause under Order 42 Rule 6; no appeal was preferred against the decree, and no application for instalment payments was made
Costs
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.
It is therefore my opinion, and I so hold that the Application dated 18/06/2024 has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Substantial loss in its various forms, is the cornerstone of both jurisdictions for granting a stay.
It is also very doubtful if a stay of execution of a Decree is available to a litigant who has not appealed against that Decree.
The Applicant has not filed any Appeal but has sought to have a stay without preferring an Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The party role labels are inconsistently swapped throughout the judgment (e.g. the Applicant is described as both 'Plaintifi/Respondent' and 'Defendant/Applicant' in the same passage)
The decretal sum is stated inconsistently as Kesh 52,665,880 in one passage and Kesh 52,663,880 in another
The case number, court division and full case title are not stated anywhere in the judgment, which identifies itself only by the Notice of Motion dated 18/06/2024
The judgment refers to a 'Judgment dated 06/06/2024' which ordered payment of Kesh 52,665,880, but in the same opening paragraph describes the Applicant as both judgment-debtor and as the party who sold the suit property for Kesh 90,000,000 on behalf of the Respondent, without clarifying the underlying cause
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waichari (Suing as an Administrator of the Estate of Francis Albert Waichari) v Kairu (Practicing as Kimani Kairu & Co Advocates) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3751 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3751/eng@2025-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.