1. The matter is coming up for directions in respect of two (2) Applications namely; Application dated 5/5/2026 and 22/5/2026 . The two are applications for stay.
2. In the application dated 5/5/2026, the Court ordered the Applicant to deposit half of the decretal amount in Court within 30 days, in default , the orders be vacated.
3. In the application dated 22/5/2026, the Applicant approached the Court seeking variation of orders issued on 5/5/2026, that ordered the Applicant to pay half of the decretal amount in Court within 30 days and instead, allow the Applicant to deposit in Court, logbooks for motor vehicles registration numbers KCA 035D, KCY 141C and KBJ 472K and tile deed for parcel of land Mavoko Block 3/17209 .
4. The 1 st Respondent opposed the application on grounds that the Applicant had filed the 2 nd application dated 22/5/2026 seeking to vary or replace the orders of stay granted in the first application without demonstrating any efforts made towards fulfilling the previous conditions.
5. The 1 st Respondent argued that the Applicant has not demonstrated the prejudice it would suffer if the decretal amount is paid or secured as ordered by the Court.
6. The 1 st Respondent further argued that assets proposed as security are subject to wear and tear and, depreciation. It contended that the Applicant is choosing orders that is favourable to it.
7. The Applicant in response replied that though it is desirous of depositing security as per the terms of the order of the Court, it has not done so it has been difficulty to raise Kshs.7 million in cash. Instead, it has offered to deposit reasonable security in terms of assets and pleads with the Court to accept it in substitution of the cash deposit. Counsel cited the case of Amal Hauliers Limited –V- Abdulnasir Abukar Hassan (2027) Eklr and urged the Court in exercising its discretion to consider the special circumstances of the case and unique requirements, in particular, the large amounts required to be deposited in Court so that the applicant is not prevented from litigating the Appeal before it is even heard.
8. I have considered the respective sides arguments keenly. An application for stay is discretionary, and in giving conditions for stay, the Court should be careful to ensure the conditions granted do not hinder a Party from exercising his/her deserved right of appeal, as long as sufficient security for the appeal to safeguard the interest of the Respondents is provided, that incase the Appeal fails.
9. In the present case, the Appellant is willing to deposit security in form of assets, citing difficulties in raising the actual solid cash that is required as deposit into Court. Already, the issue of grant of stay is not in contention that has been granted; the only issue is whether the condition requiring the deposit of cash security should be varied and substituted with security in the form of assets.
10. In my view, as long as the assets offered or submitted are properly registered in the name of the Applicant, are not charged to any other entity or person or rather do not have encumbrances and the valuation shows the amount is equivalent to what the Court had ordered to be deposited, though in kind, not in cash, I would not hesitate to order substitution of cash for the security offered. This is because deposit of logbooks and title deed creates an informal charge of the said property as against the Appellant in favour of the Respondents and in as good as security cash, in the event the Appeal fails, it can be attached and realized with the leave of the Court.
11. There was contention by the 1 st Respondent that property is subject to wear and tear but so is money; it is also subject to inflation, further, the deposit of security is only a contingent requirement. In any case, there is land, which is not subject to depreciation. It is part of security the Appellant is offering.
12. Accordingly, I am persuaded that the Applicant’s Application to substitute the security is merited and thus allow the same on the following terms:
1) The Applicant shall submit the original logbook of the motor vehicles, whose details are contained in the affidavit in support of the Application to the Deputy Registrar of this Court for verification and approval, who shall ensure: -
i) The logbooks are properly registered in the names of the Applicant and have no liabilities registered against them.
ii) Original valuation/assessment reports showing the value of the said motor vehicles.
iii) Ensure applicable inhibitions are registered with NTSA against the said logbooks until this Appeal is heard and determined.
2. Title deed, Mavoko Town Block 3/17209 (original) and valuation report.
i) Title must be without encumbrances.
ii) An order of inhibition is registered against to the title.
3. The values of the properties offered must be equal to or above the half of decretal sum which is the subject of this Appeal.
4. The order of stay shall take effect after the documents are presented, verified and approved by Deputy Registrar. This shall be done within 7 days .
Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Thika this 27 th day of July, 2026.
………………………………………….
L N MUGAMBI
JUDGE
Page 4 CIVIL APPEAL NO. E086 OF 2026 RULING
2. In the application dated 5/5/2026, the Court ordered the Applicant to deposit half of the decretal amount in Court within 30 days, in default , the orders be vacated.
3. In the application dated 22/5/2026, the Applicant approached the Court seeking variation of orders issued on 5/5/2026, that ordered the Applicant to pay half of the decretal amount in Court within 30 days and instead, allow the Applicant to deposit in Court, logbooks for motor vehicles registration numbers KCA 035D, KCY 141C and KBJ 472K and tile deed for parcel of land Mavoko Block 3/17209 .
4. The 1 st Respondent opposed the application on grounds that the Applicant had filed the 2 nd application dated 22/5/2026 seeking to vary or replace the orders of stay granted in the first application without demonstrating any efforts made towards fulfilling the previous conditions.
5. The 1 st Respondent argued that the Applicant has not demonstrated the prejudice it would suffer if the decretal amount is paid or secured as ordered by the Court.
6. The 1 st Respondent further argued that assets proposed as security are subject to wear and tear and, depreciation. It contended that the Applicant is choosing orders that is favourable to it.
7. The Applicant in response replied that though it is desirous of depositing security as per the terms of the order of the Court, it has not done so it has been difficulty to raise Kshs.7 million in cash. Instead, it has offered to deposit reasonable security in terms of assets and pleads with the Court to accept it in substitution of the cash deposit. Counsel cited the case of Amal Hauliers Limited –V- Abdulnasir Abukar Hassan (2027) Eklr and urged the Court in exercising its discretion to consider the special circumstances of the case and unique requirements, in particular, the large amounts required to be deposited in Court so that the applicant is not prevented from litigating the Appeal before it is even heard.
8. I have considered the respective sides arguments keenly. An application for stay is discretionary, and in giving conditions for stay, the Court should be careful to ensure the conditions granted do not hinder a Party from exercising his/her deserved right of appeal, as long as sufficient security for the appeal to safeguard the interest of the Respondents is provided, that incase the Appeal fails.
9. In the present case, the Appellant is willing to deposit security in form of assets, citing difficulties in raising the actual solid cash that is required as deposit into Court. Already, the issue of grant of stay is not in contention that has been granted; the only issue is whether the condition requiring the deposit of cash security should be varied and substituted with security in the form of assets.
10. In my view, as long as the assets offered or submitted are properly registered in the name of the Applicant, are not charged to any other entity or person or rather do not have encumbrances and the valuation shows the amount is equivalent to what the Court had ordered to be deposited, though in kind, not in cash, I would not hesitate to order substitution of cash for the security offered. This is because deposit of logbooks and title deed creates an informal charge of the said property as against the Appellant in favour of the Respondents and in as good as security cash, in the event the Appeal fails, it can be attached and realized with the leave of the Court.
11. There was contention by the 1 st Respondent that property is subject to wear and tear but so is money; it is also subject to inflation, further, the deposit of security is only a contingent requirement. In any case, there is land, which is not subject to depreciation. It is part of security the Appellant is offering.
12. Accordingly, I am persuaded that the Applicant’s Application to substitute the security is merited and thus allow the same on the following terms:
1) The Applicant shall submit the original logbook of the motor vehicles, whose details are contained in the affidavit in support of the Application to the Deputy Registrar of this Court for verification and approval, who shall ensure: -
i) The logbooks are properly registered in the names of the Applicant and have no liabilities registered against them.
ii) Original valuation/assessment reports showing the value of the said motor vehicles.
iii) Ensure applicable inhibitions are registered with NTSA against the said logbooks until this Appeal is heard and determined.
2. Title deed, Mavoko Town Block 3/17209 (original) and valuation report.
i) Title must be without encumbrances.
ii) An order of inhibition is registered against to the title.
3. The values of the properties offered must be equal to or above the half of decretal sum which is the subject of this Appeal.
4. The order of stay shall take effect after the documents are presented, verified and approved by Deputy Registrar. This shall be done within 7 days .
Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Thika this 27 th day of July, 2026.
………………………………………….
L N MUGAMBI
JUDGE
Page 4 CIVIL APPEAL NO. E086 OF 2026 RULING