[2001] KECA 262 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 262 (KLR)

The Court found that the refusal by the High Court to grant an adjournment, after thirteen previous adjournments, did not constitute an arguable point for appeal. The applicant failed to show that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, as there was no evidence that the respondent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 262 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Allied Industries Ltd; Respondent: David Mbuthia
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 323 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Adjournment Refusal, Appeal Lodgment, Decretal Sum Refund
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Adjournment Refusal Appeal Lodgment Decretal Sum Refund

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allied Industries Ltd

Applicant

David Mbuthia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal

  1. 1 Whether refusal to grant an adjournment by the High Court justified a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's alleged inability to refund the decretal sum is sufficient ground for stay.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the refusal by the High Court to grant an adjournment, after thirteen previous adjournments, did not constitute an arguable point for appeal. The applicant failed to show that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, as there was no evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum. The mere assertion of inability to refund is insufficient. The application for stay of execution was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.