[2004] KEHC 2274 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had discharged the onus of demonstrating substantial loss, as the respondent's unemployment and lack of known income were uncontroverted. The application was timely, and the applicant had offered security. The court recognized that, while stay of execution of a money decree is not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2274 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd; Respondent: Ayaga M. Sangale
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 247 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Decree, Substantial Loss, Money Decree, Banker Liability
- 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
Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd
Appellant
Ayaga M. Sangale
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
- 2 Whether the application for stay was made without undue delay.
- 3 Whether the applicant has offered adequate security for the due performance of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had discharged the onus of demonstrating substantial loss, as the respondent's unemployment and lack of known income were uncontroverted. The application was timely, and the applicant had offered security. The court recognized that, while stay of execution of a money decree is not ordinarily granted, exceptions exist where circumstances justify it. The court exercised its discretion to grant stay, conditional upon the applicant depositing the entire decretal sum in court as security, pending the determination of the appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
Orders
- Stay of execution granted on condition that the entire decretal sum is deposited in court within 21 days as security pending appeal.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO 247 OF 2004
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK KENYA LTD …...… APPELLANT
VERSUS
AYAGA M. SANGALE ………………………………. RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application for stay of execution of the Judgment of the lower court in CMCC 6819 of 2002 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
The appeal is based on a point of law involving the liability of a paying banker vis a vis a collecting banker.
The applicant bank is apprehensive that if the decretal amount is paid to the respondent who it says “is unemployed … and has no known sources of income”, it will be unable to recover the same. This fact is not controverted as there is no replying affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant. In an application of this nature under Order 41 Rule 4, the Applicant will succeed if he demonstrates to the satisfaction of this Court that substantial loss will ensue if the order of stay is not granted; that he has filed the application without undue delay, and that he has offered such security as may be ordered for the due performance of the decree. The onus is on the applicant to discharge the above through a deposition.
Ms Nyagah, Counsel for the respondent relied on the case of Kenya Shell Ltd vs Karuga & Another (1982 – 88) I KAR 1018 to argue that stay of execution of a money decree is not normally granted, and further that the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that if stay was not granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory (See Kenya Ports Authority vs James Nderitu Gachagua (Nairobi C A 106 of 1999).
Ms Nyagah is right that the onus is on the applicant to show substantial loss. That onus has been discharged to the satisfaction of this court. The applicant has deponed through its authorized officer that “the respondent is currently unemployed and after his retirement has no known sources of income.” This fact, as I said before, is not controverted.
As for the Kenya Shell case , Mr Chacha Odera, for the Applicant, correctly pointed out that the Court of Appeal in I. C. D. C. vs Daber Enterprises Ltd. (Nairobi 223 of 1999) said that “the Kenya Shell case has at the very least been modified for it was held in the cases of Kenindia Assur ance Company vs Muturi(Nairobi C A 107 of 1993) and Nairobi Deluxe Services vs Ndege(Nairobi C A 64 of 1992) that if the circumstances of the case so demand a stay order can be granted even in money decrees.”
With regard to the other two considerations of Order 41 Rule 4 – timeliness of the application and security – the respondent’s counsel did not dispute that the application was timely, but argued that the applicant had not offered security. That is, of course, not correct. The applicant has indeed made such offers in the application, as well as in submissions to this Court. In any event, it is for this Court to order such security as it deems appropriate, and for the applicant to be bound by, and to give, such security (Order 41 Rule 4 (2) (b).
Accordingly, and for reasons outlined, the application for stay of execution dated May 5, 2004 is allowed on condition that the entire decretal sum is deposited in Court within the next 21 days as Security pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. Costs shall be in the cause.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 19th day of July, 2004.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE