1. The Appellant herein took out the Motion dated 25 th March, 2025 whereof she sought for Stay of Execution of the decree of the Trial Court pending Appeal. The Appellant swore a Supporting Affidavit and a Further Affidavit and filed the same in support of the motion. The Respondents filed grounds of opposition to oppose the motion.
2. It is the submission of the Appellant/Applicant that unless the order for Stay of Execution is granted, she would suffer irreparable loss and damage since the appeal will be rendered nugatory.
3. The Respondent opposed the application arguing that since the decree has not been extracted, there is no decree in place to warrant the issue of Stay of Execution of the same. The Respondent did not dispute the averment that the Appeal will be rendered nugatory in that if the decretal sum is paid, the Respondents may not be in a position to refund.
4. This Court is convinced by the argument put forward that unless the order for Stay is granted, the decretal sum if paid it may become extremely difficult for the Appellant to get a refund, if the Appeal turns successful.
5. The application is allowed. Consequently, an order for Stay of Execution of the decree of the Trial Court is granted on condition that the Appellant/Applicant deposits half the decretal sum i.e. Kshs.1,823,675/= in Court within 45 days.
6. Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the Appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kericho this 3 rd day of December, 2025.
.……………………………
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the Presence of :-
C/Assistant – Rutoh
Koske for the Respondent
No Appearance for the Appellant
2 | Page
2. It is the submission of the Appellant/Applicant that unless the order for Stay of Execution is granted, she would suffer irreparable loss and damage since the appeal will be rendered nugatory.
3. The Respondent opposed the application arguing that since the decree has not been extracted, there is no decree in place to warrant the issue of Stay of Execution of the same. The Respondent did not dispute the averment that the Appeal will be rendered nugatory in that if the decretal sum is paid, the Respondents may not be in a position to refund.
4. This Court is convinced by the argument put forward that unless the order for Stay is granted, the decretal sum if paid it may become extremely difficult for the Appellant to get a refund, if the Appeal turns successful.
5. The application is allowed. Consequently, an order for Stay of Execution of the decree of the Trial Court is granted on condition that the Appellant/Applicant deposits half the decretal sum i.e. Kshs.1,823,675/= in Court within 45 days.
6. Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the Appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kericho this 3 rd day of December, 2025.
.……………………………
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the Presence of :-
C/Assistant – Rutoh
Koske for the Respondent
No Appearance for the Appellant
2 | Page