Raphael & another v Righa (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 5812 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court paused execution of a November 2024 judgment for only 180 days, telling the appellant to pursue her appeal without delay.
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 a stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal
Stay granted for 180 days; execution would render the appeal nugatory, but the stay is time-limited to prevent indolence in prosecuting the appeal
The court reiterated the four conditions for stay: just cause, substantial loss, security, and absence of unreasonable delay, anchored on Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. While acknowledging the Appellants' right to the fruits of judgment, the court found that execution would render the appeal nugatory. Balancing the interests, it granted a stay limited to 180 days to incentivise speedy prosecution of the appeal at the Court of Appeal.
Legal principles established
#- The successful litigant in possession of a valid court judgment is entitled to the fruits of judgment unless exceptional circumstances exist
- The mere filing of a Notice of Appeal does not automatically warrant stay of execution
- The applicant bears the burden of proving substantial loss
Court orders
#- 1.An order staying the execution of the Judgment and Decree delivered on 22nd November 2024 be and is hereby granted for 180 days
- 2.Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the Appeal
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
Relief refused
#Unlimited/conditional stay pending appeal
Stay granted only for a limited duration of 180 days to ensure the appeal is prosecuted without delay
Costs
Costs of this 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 staying the execution of the Judgment and Decree delivered on 22nd November 2024 be and is hereby granted for 180 days.
this court shall grant a stay limited for a particular duration so that the Applicant herein does not sit back and fail to prosecute her appeal lodged at the Court of Appeal.
The mere filing of a Notice of Appeal does not automatically warrant the issuance of orders of stay of execution of the decree.
No appeal or second appeal shall operate as a stay of execution or proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except in so far as the court appealed from may order
Issues in the judgment
#Party designations are internally inconsistent: the application is brought by the 'Respondent/Applicant' but opposed by 'Appellants', though the matter is a first-instance stay application following a 22nd November 2024 judgment appealed to the Court of Appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Raphael & another v Righa (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 5812 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5812/eng@2025-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.