[2023] KEHC 1012 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay, as it was made immediately after the applicant became aware of the execution process. The applicant demonstrated that it would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, particularly because it denied ownership of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 1012 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Alginza Automobiles Limited; Respondent: Solomon Yumbya Mulei; Interested Party: Catherine Mwikali Muisyo; Interested Party: Robert Nganga Muisyo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E077 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Process, Security for Decretal Sum
- 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
Alginza Automobiles Limited
Applicant
Solomon Yumbya Mulei
Respondent
Catherine Mwikali Muisyo
Interested Party
Robert Nganga Muisyo
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay, as it was made immediately after the applicant became aware of the execution process. The applicant demonstrated that it would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, particularly because it denied ownership of the subject motor vehicle and the appeal would determine the proper party for execution. The applicant also indicated willingness to provide security for the decretal amount. The court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, with the condition that the appeal be heard within the year 2023, failing which the stay...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
Orders
- Stay of execution of decree/judgment pending hearing and determination of the appeal is granted.
- The appellant/applicant must ensure the appeal is heard within the year 2023, otherwise the stay orders will automatically lapse at the end of the year.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
Alginza Automobiles Limited v Mulei; Muisyo & another (Interested Parties) (Civil Appeal E077 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 1012 (KLR) (16 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 1012 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Makueni
Civil Appeal E077 of 2021
GMA Dulu, J
February 16, 2023
Between
Alginza Automobiles Limited
Applicant
and
Solomon Yumbya Mulei
Respondent
and
Catherine Mwikali Muisyo
Interested Party
Robert Nganga Muisyo
Interested Party
Ruling
1. Before me is an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 27th April 2022 filed under Order 22 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as well as section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21).
2. The application has three (3) prayers, two of which have been spent as follows –1. (Spent)
2. (Spent)
3. That there be an order for stay of execution herein pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein.
3. The application has grounds on the face of the Notice of Motion, that auctioneers had commenced execution by proclaiming the applicant’s properties on 25/04/2022.
4. The application was filed with a supporting affidavit sworn on 25th April 2022 by Hannif Muhammad a Director of the applicant which amplifies the grounds of the application, and states that the appeal filed has high chances of success, and that it will be rendered nugatory if execution is effected.
5. The said Hannif Muhammad filed a further affidavit sworn on 24/05/2022 in reply to the replying affidavit.
6. The application is opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by the respondent Solomon Yumbya Mulei on 24/05/2022 in which it was deponed that the applicant had filed a similar application in the magistrates court dated 15/11/2021 which was yet to be heard and that judgment herein was delivered way back on 29/09/2021.
7. The application was canvassed through written submissions. In this regard, I have perused and considered the written submissions filed by Eliakim Owala & Company advocates for the applicant, and the submissions filed by Nyaata & Nyaata advocates for the respondent.
8. This being an application for stay of execution of judgment or decree, it is governed by the provisions of Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, especially Rule 6(2).
9. This court has discretionary power to grant stay of execution in order to do justice to the parties, and each case depends on its own peculiar or special fact, but the principles to be applied bycourts in determining such an application are stated in Order 42 Rule 6(2) Civil Procedure Rules.
10. I have noted that the appeal was filed in 2021, but the application filed in April 2022 after execution had commenced. In the circumstances of this case where the applicant denied ownership of the subject motor vehicle and the case proceeded to formal proof in respect of the other two defendants, and since the applicant filed this application immediately they became aware of execution commenced against them, I find that the application herein was filed without unreasonable delay.
11. Will the applicant suffer substantial loss if the stay orders sought are not granted? In my view the answer is in the affirmative, as the applicant/appellant still maintains that they sold the vehicle to the other defendants sued in the trial court and had no control over them. Thus in my view, the issue of sale to be determined on appeal will clear the air on who can be executed against. However, in my view, this appeal should be heard within the year 2023.
12. With regard to provisions of security, the applicant has indicated willingness to pay the decretal amount if the appeal is successful.
13. In view of my above findings, I allow the application on the following terms:-i.I hereby order stay of execution of decree/judgment pending hearing and determination of the appeal herein.ii.The appellant/applicant will ensure that the appeal is heard within this year 2023, otherwise at the end of this year the stay orders granted herein will automatically lapse.iii.The costs of the application will follow determination of the appeal.
DELIVERED, SIGNED & DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023, IN OPEN COURT AT MAKUENI..................................GEORGE DULUJUDGE