1. This Court, in a decision delivered on 28th November 2024, revoked the grant in favour of the petitioner/applicant on 8th November 2021. The petitioner/applicant was aggrieved by the said decision and has filed an appeal. Her Notice of Appeal is dated 2nd September 2025.
2. Seeking to preserve the substratum of her appeal, the petitioner/applicant filed a Notice of Motion application dated 2nd September 2025, vide which she sought a stay of execution of the judgment of this Court pending appeal. The said application was opposed by the Objector/Applicant. I will not rehash the parties' arguments here, as this is a run-of-the-mill stay application, founded on the usual, well-understood grounds.
3. I have considered the application of the petitioner/applicant and the responses thereto. I note at the outset that there is no indication as to the status of the appeal, nor the citation thereof.
4. In the case of Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1979] KECA 22 (KLR), Madan, JA (as he then was), stated as follows:
It is in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse a stay, but what has to be judged in every case is whether there are or not particular circumstances in the case to make an order staying execution. It has been said that the court, as a general rule, ought to exercise its best discretion in a way so as not to prevent the appeal, if successful from being nugatory, per Brett, LJ in Wilson v Church (No 2) 12 Ch D (1879) 454 at p 459. In the same case, Cotton LJ said at p 458:
“I will state my opinion that when a party is appealing, exercising his undoubted right of appeal, this court ought to see that the appeal, if successful, is not nugatory.”
5. I am persuaded that the proposed appeal is arguable, that in the circumstances of the matter the delay was not inordinate, and that the best way of securing all parties’ interests is by issuing an order maintaining the current status quo until the Court of Appeal renders itself.
6. Thus, the court, noting the nature of the matter, is inclined to allow the application dated 2nd September 2025 in the interest of justice. To prevent abuse of the court process, there will be a stay of execution of the court's Judgment on the condition that the record of appeal is filed, if not already done, and that steps are taken to prosecute the appeal, within 60 days of the date hereof.
7. If the Petitioner/Applicant fails to prosecute her appeal as directed above, the stay granted shall lapse upon the lapse of 60 days from the date hereof.
8. This is a succession dispute. Each party shall bear his/her own costs.
9. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 18th day of June 2026.
2. Seeking to preserve the substratum of her appeal, the petitioner/applicant filed a Notice of Motion application dated 2nd September 2025, vide which she sought a stay of execution of the judgment of this Court pending appeal. The said application was opposed by the Objector/Applicant. I will not rehash the parties' arguments here, as this is a run-of-the-mill stay application, founded on the usual, well-understood grounds.
3. I have considered the application of the petitioner/applicant and the responses thereto. I note at the outset that there is no indication as to the status of the appeal, nor the citation thereof.
4. In the case of Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1979] KECA 22 (KLR), Madan, JA (as he then was), stated as follows:
It is in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse a stay, but what has to be judged in every case is whether there are or not particular circumstances in the case to make an order staying execution. It has been said that the court, as a general rule, ought to exercise its best discretion in a way so as not to prevent the appeal, if successful from being nugatory, per Brett, LJ in Wilson v Church (No 2) 12 Ch D (1879) 454 at p 459. In the same case, Cotton LJ said at p 458:
“I will state my opinion that when a party is appealing, exercising his undoubted right of appeal, this court ought to see that the appeal, if successful, is not nugatory.”
5. I am persuaded that the proposed appeal is arguable, that in the circumstances of the matter the delay was not inordinate, and that the best way of securing all parties’ interests is by issuing an order maintaining the current status quo until the Court of Appeal renders itself.
6. Thus, the court, noting the nature of the matter, is inclined to allow the application dated 2nd September 2025 in the interest of justice. To prevent abuse of the court process, there will be a stay of execution of the court's Judgment on the condition that the record of appeal is filed, if not already done, and that steps are taken to prosecute the appeal, within 60 days of the date hereof.
7. If the Petitioner/Applicant fails to prosecute her appeal as directed above, the stay granted shall lapse upon the lapse of 60 days from the date hereof.
8. This is a succession dispute. Each party shall bear his/her own costs.
9. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 18th day of June 2026.