Mang’eli v Katimu (Environment and Land Appeal E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4947 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court dismissed a stay of execution because the appellant could only be forced to pay costs, not suffer real loss while his appeal proceeded.
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 Applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant met the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
The application was dismissed: although filed promptly, the Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss since the only execution possible was on costs, which would not render the appeal nugatory, and the Respondent was not shown to be a man of straw.
The court applied the three Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions. Promptness was satisfied, as the application was filed three days after judgment. On substantial loss, the court examined the reliefs granted: an injunction restraining trespass and costs. Since only costs could be executed, non-stay would not make the appeal academic. The Respondent, as owner of the suit property with no evidence of intent to sell, could not be considered a man of straw incapable of refunding costs.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) are: no unreasonable delay, demonstration of substantial loss, and security for due performance of the decree.
- Demonstration of substantial loss is the essential element in an application for stay of execution.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th December 2024 seeking stay of execution pending appeal was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court (CM ELC)
- CM ELC No. E018 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution pending appeal
The Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss; execution could only be on costs, which would not render 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.
The conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal are set out under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. They are firstly that an application for stay has to be brought without unreasonable delay. Secondly, the Applicant has to demonstrate that he will sufier substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
Execution can only be on costs of the suit. This will not in any way render the appeal nugatory or an academic exercise.
This is not a person who can be said to be a man of straw.
As the Applicant has not demonstrated that he will sufier substantial loss absent stay, I find that his application is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's case number for the High Court matter itself is not stated anywhere in the text; only the trial court case number (CM ELC No. E018 of 2022) is given.
Chronological inconsistency within the judgment: the motion is described as dated 11th December, 2024, but paragraph 15 states the application for stay was filed on 11th November, 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mang’eli v Katimu (Environment and Land Appeal E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4947 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4947/eng@2025-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.