[2023] KEHC 245 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 245 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants had satisfied the three conditions under Order 42 Rule 6 for the grant of stay pending appeal: they demonstrated the risk of substantial loss due to the large decretal sum, filed the application without unreasonable delay, and offered security for due performance. However, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 245 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Jaspeter Kaur Amrit; Appellant: Travinder Singh; Respondent: Gloria Muthoni Wachira
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Murang'a
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E071 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay pending appeal allowed with conditions.
Judges
NW Sifuna
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, Order 42 Rule 6, Money Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Substantial Loss Order 42 Rule 6 Money Judgment

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaspeter Kaur Amrit

Appellant

Travinder Singh

Appellant

Gloria Muthoni Wachira

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the security offered by the appellants is adequate and appropriate for a money judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants had satisfied the three conditions under Order 42 Rule 6 for the grant of stay pending appeal: they demonstrated the risk of substantial loss due to the large decretal sum, filed the application without unreasonable delay, and offered security for due performance. However, the court held that for a money judgment, monetary security is preferable to an insurance bond. Accordingly, the court granted a conditional stay pending appeal, requiring the appellants to pay KES 3 million to the respondent within 45 days, with the balance of KES 9,684,962.44 to abide the outcome of the appeal. Failure to comply would result in the lapse of the stay and the entire...

Court Disposition

Application for stay pending appeal allowed with conditions.

Orders

  • Stay of execution pending appeal granted until hearing and final determination of the appeal, conditional upon payment of KES 3 million to the respondent within 45 days.
  • The balance of KES 9,684,962.44 to abide the outcome of the appeal.