SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kamau v Agricultural Finance Corporation & 3 others (Civil Application E067 of 2022) [2025] KECA 574 (KLR) (14 March 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KECA 574 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
574
Citation
[2025] KECA 574 (KLR)
Decided
14 March 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureApplication for stay of execution pending appealCoramAO MUCHELULE
Holding

The application is allowed, and the notice of motion dated 25th July 2022 is merited.

Facts

The applicant, Ann Wangechi Kamau, has been staying on the suit land (Land Reference No. Kiine/Rukanga/602) for over 40 years. The 2nd respondent, Keysian Auctioneers, evicted the applicant for an outstanding loan of Kshs.3,000,000 allegedly guaranteed by the applicant's husband, Kibinga Gitau, who has since passed away.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal is arguable
  2. Whether the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory if execution proceeds

Reasoning

The Court found that the intended appeal is arguable and that execution of the judgment would render the appeal nugatory, thus satisfying the requirements under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Outcome

The application for stay of execution pending appeal is granted.

Orders

  • Stay of execution pending appeal

Remedies

  • Stay of execution pending appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules
  • Land Registration Act
Cases cited (4)
  • Trust Bank Limited and Another v. Investech Bank Limited & 3 Others (2000) eKLR
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others (2000) eKLR
  • Republic v Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission & 2 others (2009) KLR 31
  • Reliance Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments Limited (2012) 1 EA 227
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case