Peter Githaka Njagi v Michael Fundi Karuri
The bottom line
#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 Appellant has satisfied the requirements for grant of stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant demonstrated substantial loss for stay of execution
Substantial loss was not demonstrated; the decree is monetary and the Respondent's ability to refund was not rebutted
The decree required refund of Kshs.1,500,000 purchase price plus Kshs.300,000 liquidated damages. The court found no evidence of the alleged rent arrears said to constitute security, no demonstration that the Respondent could not refund, and noted execution need not target the suit property.
Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay
Yes; the requirement was satisfied, as conceded by the Respondent
The Respondent expressly conceded that the application was filed without undue delay, so the court found this Order 42 Rule 6(2) condition met, though it was insufficient alone to earn a stay.
Whether security for due performance of the decree was given
No; the Appellant offered no security beyond unevidenced alleged rent arrears
Apart from asserting that the Respondent owed rent arrears exceeding the decretal sum, which claim was unsupported by any evidence before the court, the Appellant proposed no security, failing this condition.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay pending appeal must demonstrate substantial loss, file without unreasonable delay, and provide security as the court may order under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
- Alleged set-off claims asserted as security must be supported by evidence; execution of a money decree does not necessarily entail attachment of the suit property
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 17/04/2026 seeking stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed
- 2.The Respondent shall have costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment and decree dated 19/03/2026 pending the intended appeal
Appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss and did not offer security for due performance of the decree
Costs
The Respondent shall have costs of the application.
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 Applicant must demonstrate that substantial loss may result to him unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that such security as the Court may order for the due performance of the decree has been given.
However, no evidence was placed before the Court to demonstrate either the existence of the alleged rent arrears or the pendency of the said proceedings.
Consequently, I find that the Appellant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal. The application is therefore dismissed.
The Respondent shall have costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates of the trial court judgment within the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Githaka Njagi v Michael Fundi Karuri", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No. E012 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5653/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.