Ajala v Amimo & another (Environment and Land Appeal E084 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7202 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kisumu Environment and Land Court refused to pause execution because an order striking out a suit cannot be enforced except for costs.
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 demonstrated substantial loss that may result unless stay of execution of the ruling of 18th September 2025 is granted
- 2.Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay
- 3.Whether security for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on the applicant has been given
Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution of a negative order (striking out of suit) can be granted
A negative order striking out a suit is incapable of execution save for recovery of costs, and stay cannot issue absent evidence that execution for costs has commenced
The court perused the ruling appealed against and found it upheld a preliminary objection and struck out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Because such an order is negative, there is nothing to execute except costs. As no process for recovery of costs had commenced, the claimed irreparable loss would not flow from execution of the ruling, and the substantial-loss condition failed.
Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
Only the promptness condition was met; substantial loss and security were not demonstrated, so the application failed
The court set out the three statutory grounds for stay: substantial loss, application brought without unreasonable delay, and provision of security for due performance of any decree ultimately binding on the applicant. Although the application was brought without unreasonable delay, the applicant failed to demonstrate the remaining grounds, rendering the application unmerited.
Legal principles established
#- An order striking out a suit is a negative order incapable of execution except for recovery of costs
- The conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) are substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd September 2025 is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Trial court (not named in the judgment)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (stay of execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 18th September 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
The order appealed against struck out the suit and is a negative order incapable of execution save for recovery of costs; no evidence that execution of costs has commenced and the other grounds for stay were not demonstrated
Costs
No order as to costs.
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 order made by the trial court in the ruling appealed against was for the striking out of the suit. This was a negative order hence incapable of execution, save for recovery of costs.
The grounds for grant of an order of stay of execution as provided in Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 are that the Applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that substantial loss may result to him/her unless the order of stay of execution is made.
The court finds that the application lacks merit and hereby dismisses it. No order as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ajala v Amimo & another (Environment and Land Appeal E084 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7202/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.