John & 4 others v Kenya Pipeline Company; National Environment Management Authority (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 5803 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court paused execution of a Ksh 204 million judgment for 120 days, but only because the losing party secured the full amount with a bank guarantee.
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 orders sought by the applicant herein are merited, i.e. whether the requirements for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6 - sufficient cause, substantial loss and security for due performance of the decree - have been satisfied
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6
The Applicant satisfied the conditions: it demonstrated substantial loss since execution would render the appeal nugatory, and it offered security by way of bank guarantee
The court applied Order 42 rule 6 and the guiding principles in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, Century Oil, James Wangalwa and Gianfranco Manenthi. It found the Applicant would suffer substantial loss if the entire decretal sum were paid before the appeal was heard, as execution would render the appeal nugatory. Balancing this with the Respondents' entitlement to the fruits of judgment, the court granted a stay of 120 days conditional on a bank guarantee for the full decretal sum, invoking the overriding objective to protect both parties.
The form and adequacy of acceptable security
A bank guarantee from a reputable financial institution is acceptable security for the entire decretal sum
Relying on Nduhiu Gitahi v Warugongo, the court noted that the form of security is immaterial so long as it adequately protects the opposite party, and bank guarantees are expressly recognized. The Applicant had offered a bank guarantee. The court weighed the overriding objective, holding that the Applicant should not be unable to recover its money if the appeal succeeds, and the Respondents should not find it difficult to realize the decree if it fails.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution bears the burden of proving that it will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted
- A court may grant a time-limited stay conditioned on security to preserve both the appellant's right of appeal and the decree-holder's fruits of judgment
Court orders
#- 1.An order of stay of execution against the judgment of this court granted for 120 days on condition that the Applicant provides a bank guarantee from a reputable financial institution for the entire decretal sum of Ksh 204,300,691.00
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (appeal lodged by the Applicant)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Open-ended/unlimited stay of execution
The court granted a stay limited to 120 days so the Applicant does not sit back and fail to prosecute its appeal
Costs
Costs of the application to 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.
An order of stay of execution against the judgment of this court is hereby granted for 120 days on condition that the Applicant provides a bank guarantee from a reputable financial institution for the entire decretal sum of Ksh 204,300,691.00
Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.
The Applicant bears the burden of proving that by refusal to grant stay of execution it stands to sufier substantial loss.
In view of the foregoing and for the interest of justice this court shall grant a stay limited for a particular duration so that the Applicant herein does not sit back and fail to prosecute its appeal lodged at the Court of Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Recurring typographical errors in the judgment text (e.g. 'sufier' for 'suffer', 'afiairs' for 'affairs', 'difierent' for 'different'), and a grammatical slip in the key holding
The name of the case and its case number are not stated in the judgment; parties are referred to only as Applicant, Respondents and Interested Party
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John & 4 others v Kenya Pipeline Company; National Environment Management Authority (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 5803 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 3rd July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5803/eng@2025-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.