[2018] KEELC 2492 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2492 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was brought without unreasonable delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate what substantial loss he would suffer if stay was not granted. The court emphasized that demonstration of substantial loss is the cornerstone for the grant of stay. Since the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2492 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Absalom U.P Abebe; Defendant: Mbukoni Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Second Defendant
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 68 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the second defendant/respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Appeal Rights, Security for Costs
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Appeal Rights Security for Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absalom U.P Abebe

Plaintiff

Mbukoni Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was brought without unreasonable delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate what substantial loss he would suffer if stay was not granted. The court emphasized that demonstration of substantial loss is the cornerstone for the grant of stay. Since the subject property was intact, with no indication of imminent disposal or construction, and no substantial loss was shown, there was no basis for granting stay. The court further noted that the merits of the appeal are for the appellate court to determine, not the court hearing the stay application. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the second defendant/respondent

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the second defendant/respondent.