Njenga Karume Trust Registered Trustees v Opondo & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E281 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4553 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court paused execution of a Kshs. 15 million judgment, but only because the appellant agreed to deposit that amount as security within 30 days.
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 grant of stay of execution is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant demonstrated substantial loss
Not established; allegations of harm to trust beneficiaries and payroll were unsubstantiated
The Applicant argued execution would affect other trust beneficiaries, payroll, creditors and statutory obligations, but produced no documentary evidence such as vouchers or creditor lists. Generalized allegations do not establish actual substantial loss, and execution of a lawful decree does not per se amount to substantial loss.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
Yes - filed the same day as the ruling
The application was filed on the same date as the impugned ruling, so no unreasonable delay was shown; this limb of Order 42 Rule 6(2) was satisfied.
Whether security for due performance was required
Yes - Kshs. 15,000,000/= in a joint interest-earning account as condition precedent to the stay
Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) is mandatory; the purpose of security is to guarantee due performance of the decree, not to punish. The Applicant was willing to give conditions but made no concrete proposal, so the court fixed Kshs. 15,000,000/= as appropriate security, failing which the stay lapses.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
Yes - the memorandum of appeal raises weighty issues of law and fact
A cursory look at the Memorandum of Appeal showed it revolves around weighty issues of law and facts; arguability does not require the appeal to succeed, only at least one bona fide ground deserving judicial consideration, and prima facie prospects of success are relevant.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution
- Execution of a lawfully given decree does not automatically amount to substantial loss; a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of judgment
- Arguability requires only one bona fide ground deserving consideration
Court orders
#- 1.There shall be a stay of execution of the ruling dated 19th December 2025 pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
- 2.The stay is conditional upon the Applicant depositing a sum of Kshs. 15,000,000/= in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the advocates for the parties within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling, in default the stay shall automatically lapse and the 1st Respondent is at liberty to execute.
- 3.The Applicant status quo remains.
- 4.Costs of the application shall 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
- Magistrates' Court (MCELC/E177/2023: Jennifer Opondo vs Albert Njenga Karume & Anor.)
- MCELC/E177/2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Unconditional stay
Substantial loss not demonstrated; stay granted only conditionally on security
Costs
Costs of the application 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 shall be a stay of execution of the ruling dated 19th December 2025 pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
The stay is conditional upon the Applicant depositing a sum of Kshs. 15,000,000/= in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the advocates for the parties within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling, in default the stay shall automatically lapse and the 1st Respondent is at liberty to execute.
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay.
The principle that execution of a lawful given decree does not automatically amount to substantial loss would be applicable here .A successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment.
Issues in the judgment
#The year of the lower court case number is inconsistent within the judgment - E177/2023 in the motion but E177/2013 in the supporting affidavit recital
The court allowed the stay application despite finding substantial loss was not established, and granted an unlimited-stay order ('status quo remains') whose terms are vague
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njenga Karume Trust Registered Trustees v Opondo & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E281 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4553 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal (from MCELC/E177/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4553/eng@2026-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.