Dorothy Bonareri Nyakweba (Suing as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra Nyakweba) v Directline Assurance Company Limited
The bottom line
#Directline Assurance lost its bid to revive a lapsed stay of execution because a consent order binds like a contract and financial hardship is no excuse.
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 conditional order of stay of execution recorded on 3rd February 2026 should be reinstated and then reviewed, varied and/or set aside
Key legal issues
#Whether the lapsed conditional stay of execution consent order could be reinstated and varied on grounds of financial hardship
The application was dismissed; the consent order lapsed automatically on non-compliance and financial difficulty is not sufficient reason to review a consent order
The parties voluntarily recorded a consent on 3rd February 2026 requiring deposit of the decretal sum within 45 days. The applicant defaulted without seeking extension. A consent order has contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds such as fraud, mistake, coercion or misrepresentation. None was pleaded or proved; the burden lay on the applicant. The claimant declined reinstatement, and the court cannot impose a consent order on unwilling parties.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to alter the terms of a consent order
The court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the terms of a consent order absent vitiating factors, following Gateway Insurance v Aries Auto Sprays
Relying on the Court of Appeal in Gateway Insurance Company Ltd v Aries Auto Sprays, the court held that where no fraud, misrepresentation, collusion or mistake is suggested, the court has absolutely no jurisdiction to alter the terms of the contract between the parties. The applicant's alleged financial challenges did not meet the legal threshold for interference.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order is a contract between the parties and can only be set aside on grounds that would justify setting aside a contract, such as fraud, mistake or misrepresentation
- An expired consent order of stay cannot be reinstated by the court unless the parties consent
- A conditional stay lapses automatically upon failure to comply with the condition on which it was predicated
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 31st March 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the ELRC Act, Rule 17 of the ELRC Procedure Rules, Rule 74 of the ELRC Procedure Rules and Order 46 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Reinstatement of the lapsed conditional stay of execution orders of 3rd February 2026
The stay lapsed on failure to comply with the consent condition and cannot be reinstated without the parties' consent; the claimant declined
Enlargement of time to deposit the decretal sum in six equal monthly installments
Financial challenges fall below the legal threshold for interfering with a consent order; no vitiating factor proved
Alternative relief to provide a bank guarantee of Kshs. 6,000,000/= as security
The court lacks jurisdiction to vary the terms of the consent order absent fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, coercion or other vitiating factor
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated 31st March 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
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.
It is not possible for the court to reinstate an expired consent order of stay unless the parties consent to do the same.
the alleged financial challenges cited as the reason for review of the conditional stay order is way below the legal threshold for interfering with a consent order agreed by the parties on 3rd February 2026.
Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 31st March 2026 is without merit and his hereby dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical error in the final orders
Misspelling of 'enunciated' in a key holding
Header anomaly referencing Makau J on a date when Marete J delivered the underlying judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dorothy Bonareri Nyakweba (Suing as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra Nyakweba) v Directline Assurance Company Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. 297 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2509/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.