'
I have read the applicant''s application dated 6 October 2025, filed under a certificate of urgency of even date. The application seeks review of my earlier in which i granted a stay of execution of a decree on condition that the decretal sum is deposited in court. The applicant now says that that there was no decree to be executed. To quote the applicant:
"1. THAT on the 13th May, 2025; this Honorable Court granted conditional stay of execution pending appeal on terms that the decretal sum be deposited in an interest-earning back account in the joint names of counsel for the respective parties within 45 days.
2. THAT the said order was erroneous or impracticable as there is no decretal sum in the matter only party-and-party costs arising from CMCC NO.1280 OF 2017 which are yet to be taxed.
3. THAT the matter; CMCC NO. 1280 of 2017 came up before Hon.J.B.Kalo on 6th October, 2025 for taxation when taxation was deferred and given a mention date of 6th November, 2025 to confirm the status of the stay orders before proceeding."
But in the application of 13 May 2025, upon which the order for stay was granted, the applicant expessly stated that there was a decree against which he sought an order for stay. In the certificate of urgency, the counsel for the applicant stated as follows:
'' "We, Messrs MOGAKA OMWENGA & MABEYA ADVOCATES, Advocates for the Appellant herein do hereby certify that the Application filed herein to be extremely urgent that requires to be heard immediately and without any undue delay on the grounds that th e Appellant is exposed to execution, which the Respondent might commence anytime against the Appellant in satisfaction of the Judgment and decree delivered by the honourable trial magistrate on 15th April 2025 to the de triment of the Appellant and unless this honourable court grants interim stay orders, the appeal filed herein will be rendered a nugatory and the appellant shall suffer great prejudice."(Emphasis added).
I am rather perturbed that the applicant can now be heard to question the court''s order on the basis that there is indeed no decree capable of execution. Suffice it to say, I am not satisfied that the applicant''s application is urgent. I direct that the same be served for mention for directions on 12 November 2025. In the meantime, the respondent is directed to file and serve the response to the application within seven days of the date of service. It is so ordered.
''
'
I have read the applicant''s application dated 6 October 2025, filed under a certificate of urgency of even date. The application seeks review of my earlier in which i granted a stay of execution of a decree on condition that the decretal sum is deposited in court. The applicant now says that that there was no decree to be executed. To quote the applicant:
"1. THAT on the 13th May, 2025; this Honorable Court granted conditional stay of execution pending appeal on terms that the decretal sum be deposited in an interest-earning back account in the joint names of counsel for the respective parties within 45 days.
2. THAT the said order was erroneous or impracticable as there is no decretal sum in the matter only party-and-party costs arising from CMCC NO.1280 OF 2017 which are yet to be taxed.
3. THAT the matter; CMCC NO. 1280 of 2017 came up before Hon.J.B.Kalo on 6th October, 2025 for taxation when taxation was deferred and given a mention date of 6th November, 2025 to confirm the status of the stay orders before proceeding."
But in the application of 13 May 2025, upon which the order for stay was granted, the applicant expessly stated that there was a decree against which he sought an order for stay. In the certificate of urgency, the counsel for the applicant stated as follows:
'' "We, Messrs MOGAKA OMWENGA & MABEYA ADVOCATES, Advocates for the Appellant herein do hereby certify that the Application filed herein to be extremely urgent that requires to be heard immediately and without any undue delay on the grounds that th e Appellant is exposed to execution, which the Respondent might commence anytime against the Appellant in satisfaction of the Judgment and decree delivered by the honourable trial magistrate on 15th April 2025 to the de triment of the Appellant and unless this honourable court grants interim stay orders, the appeal filed herein will be rendered a nugatory and the appellant shall suffer great prejudice."(Emphasis added).
I am rather perturbed that the applicant can now be heard to question the court''s order on the basis that there is indeed no decree capable of execution. Suffice it to say, I am not satisfied that the applicant''s application is urgent. I direct that the same be served for mention for directions on 12 November 2025. In the meantime, the respondent is directed to file and serve the response to the application within seven days of the date of service. It is so ordered.
''
'