[2001] KECA 278 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any urgency in the matter, as the only allegation was the potential sale of a vehicle, which could be avoided by payment of the decretal amount. The court held that mere risk of sale, without more, does not constitute sufficient urgency to warrant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KECA 278 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Akamba Public Road Services Ltd.; Respondent: Mary Muthoni
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 275 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for certification as urgent refused; costs awarded to respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Urgency Certification, Appeals Process
- 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
Akamba Public Road Services Ltd.
Applicant
Mary Muthoni
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be certified as urgent.
- 2 Whether the potential sale of the vehicle constitutes sufficient urgency to warrant certification.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any urgency in the matter, as the only allegation was the potential sale of a vehicle, which could be avoided by payment of the decretal amount. The court held that mere risk of sale, without more, does not constitute sufficient urgency to warrant certification. Accordingly, the application was not certified as urgent, and costs of the day were awarded to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application for certification as urgent refused; costs awarded to respondent.
Orders
- The application is not certified as urgent.
- Costs of today awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: OMOLO, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 275 OF 2001 (153/01 UR)
BETWEEN
AKAMBA PUBLIC ROAD SERVICES LTD. .................... APPLICANT
AND
MARY MUTHONI ...................................... RESPONDENT
(Application for stay of execution pending an appeal from
a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Embu
(Tuiyot J) dated 4th April, 2001
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 109 OF 1996)
***************** R U L I N G
I have now listened to counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondent and I am afraid to still see nothing urgent in the matter. All that is being alleged is that a vehicle might be sold unless the matter is certified as being urgent. But the applicant can avoid the sale by paying the decretal amount. I still refuse to certify the application as urgent and I award the costs of today to the respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 13th day of August, 2001.
R. S. C. OMOLO --------------- JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR