Dancun & 11 others v Amoth & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4595 (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 application for stay of execution of the ruling of 17th February 2025 and restraint on taxation of the Bill of Costs is merited
- 2.Whether there was an order capable of being stayed
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss and an order capable of being stayed under Order 42 rule 6(2)
The application failed; no order existed at filing since the bill was yet to be taxed, and no substantial loss was deponed to
Order 42 rule 6(2) requires substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security. The court found the applicants placed no depositions on substantial loss, instead arguing the merits of the appeal. Since the bill of costs had not been taxed, there was no decree or order for execution, rendering the application premature and a non-starter.
Whether the request to revisit the audio recording could be entertained
It could not; the application had already been dismissed on 5/3/2025 and that ruling was unappealed and not under review
The court noted it had ruled on the oral application to revisit the audio recording on 5/3/2025, dismissing it for want of merit. That ruling had not been appealed and the present application was not one for review, so the court declined to revisit the issue.
Legal principles established
#- A stay of execution cannot issue where no decree or order capable of execution exists
- The burden lies on the applicant for stay of execution to demonstrate substantial loss
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20/02/2025 is dismissed as a non-starter
- 2.Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6 and 7, Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ruling issued on 17th February 2025 and restraint on proceeding with the Bill of Costs
There was no decree or order arising from taxation capable of being stayed; the application was premature and no substantial loss was demonstrated
Costs
Costs shall abide the outcome of 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.
There was therefore nothing to be stayed and I agree with the respondents submission in this regard.
the burden is on the applicant to prove they will sufier substantial loss should the orders not be granted
The upshot of the foregoing is that the application in my view is a non-starter and must be dismissed. Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Replic affidavit described as supporting affidavit; court treated it as such
Rule cited ambiguously as 'Order 42 Rule b and 7'; court could not make sense of 'Rule b'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dancun & 11 others v Amoth & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4595 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 20/02/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4595/eng@2025-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.