[2012] KEHC 246 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish what nature of substantial loss he was likely to suffer if the stay was not granted. The mere willingness to deposit security as directed by the court was insufficient to warrant the grant of stay. The application for stay of execution was therefore dismissed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 246 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed; Defendant: Ahmed Mohideen; Defendant: Kenya United Steel Company Limited(2006) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 470 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Appeals, Interlocutory Applications
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed
Plaintiff
Ahmed Mohideen
Defendant
Kenya United Steel Company Limited(2006) Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has established the likelihood of suffering substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the applicant's willingness to deposit security satisfies the requirements for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish what nature of substantial loss he was likely to suffer if the stay was not granted. The mere willingness to deposit security as directed by the court was insufficient to warrant the grant of stay. The application for stay of execution was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent. The applicant was, however, allowed 30 days to comply with the court's previous orders on security for costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- The applicant is allowed 30 days to comply with the court’s orders on security for costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Mombasa
Civil Case 470 of 2011 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
AHMED MOHAMED AHMED .................................................................................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AHMED MOHIDEEN ...................................................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT
KENYA UNITED STEEL COMPANY LIMITED(2006) LIMITED ................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
By this Notice of Motion dated 10th October 2012 filed under Certificate of Urgency the Applicant seeks inter alia the following orders:
“That there be a Stay of Execution of the Ruling and Order made on 14th September 2012 pending the Hearing and determination of the Applicants Appeal to the Court of Appeal.”
By consent it was agreed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions. Both sides having duly filed and served their written submissions the matter is now pending this court’s ruling.
The ruling in contention is the ruling made by this court on 14th September 2012. In that ruling the court directed that the Applicant deposit a sum of Kshs.1,000,000/- as security for costs in a joint interest earning account held by counsel for both the Applicant and the Respondent. The proceedings in HCCC 470/2011 were stayed pending compliance by the Applicant with those orders to furnish security for costs. Instead of so complying the Applicant proceeded to file an appeal against that decision and this present application. In his application the Applicant states that he is willing to deposit security as directed by the court.
I have carefully considered the written submissions filed by both counsel in this matter. I am not persuaded of the merit of this application. The Applicant has failed to establish what nature of substantial loss he is likely to suffer if the stay is not granted. As such I do dismiss this present application with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and Delivered in Mombasa this 10th day of December 2012.
M. ODERO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Khatib for Plaintiff/Applicant
Mr. Simiyu holding brief for Respondent
COURT
The Applicant is allowed 30 days to comply with court’s orders on security.
M. ODERO
JUDGE
10. 12. 2012