[2017] KEHC 1628 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants had failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the appeal for over two years after obtaining stay orders, and only acted to file a supplementary record after being prompted by the respondents' application. The appellants did not file any response to the application nor...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1628 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Benson Muchira; Appellant: Samson Menji Gitari; Respondent: M W N; Respondent: I W (minor suing through his mother and next friend M W N)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 256 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Discharge Stay and Allow Execution
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Delay in Prosecution
- 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
Benson Muchira
Appellant
Samson Menji Gitari
Appellant
M W N
Respondent
I W (minor suing through his mother and next friend M W N)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Discharge Stay and Allow Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the stay of execution should be discharged due to the appellants' inaction in prosecuting the appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondents are prejudiced by the continued stay of execution.
- 3 Whether the appellants' failure to respond to the application warrants granting the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants had failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the appeal for over two years after obtaining stay orders, and only acted to file a supplementary record after being prompted by the respondents' application. The appellants did not file any response to the application nor attend the hearing. The court held that it is in the interest of justice that the appeal be heard promptly and that the respondents, who hold a decree, should not be prejudiced by the appellants' inaction. The continued stay of execution was therefore unjustified, and the application to discharge the stay was merited.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The orders of stay are discharged.
- The respondents are allowed to proceed with execution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2015
BENSON MUCHIRA...............................................1ST APPELLANT
SAMSON MENJI GITARI......................................2ND APPELLANT
VERSUS
M W N..................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
I W (MINOR SUING THROUGH HIS
MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND M W. N)............2ND RESPONDENT
(Being an Appeal from the judgment and decree of the Hon. Obulutsa Senior Principal Magistrate on the 30th April 2015 in Milimani CMCC No. 7385 of 2012 and consolidated with CMCC No. 7384 of 2012)
RULING
The Respondent filed the instant Application under the provisions of Order 42 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking an order that this Honourable Court be pleased to discharge its orders of stay and allow the Respondent to proceed with execution. The Respondents have also sought for the costs of the application.
The Application was supported by the affidavit of SETH OJIENDA, an Advocate in conduct of the matter on behalf of the Respondents where it was averred that a judgment was delivered in the lower court awarding the Respondents the sum of Kshs. 240,555 with costs and interests and the Appellants obtained stay orders which were extended pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal. The Respondents aver that since judgment was issued in the year 2015, the Appellants have lost interest in the Appeal and the said Appeal had been filed without a decree. The Respondents further deponed that the application has been brought without undue delay and if it’s not granted they would be greatly prejudiced.
The application was promptly served on the Appellants Advocates who did not file a Reply to the same.
When the matter came up for hearing, the Respondents argued that since the Appeal was filed on 28th May, 2015, the Appellants have not taken any action. The Respondents’ counsel submitted that the Appellants are riding on the order of stay that is prejudicial to the Respondents.
I have considered the application and the arguments by the Respondents. I have also perused the Court file and there is an affidavit of service. The Appellant did not attend court when the application came up for hearing. This Appeal was filed in the year 2015 and the Record of Appeal was filed on 24th March, 2017. The stay orders were also issued in the year 2015.
My further perusal of the file also reveals that the Appellants herein filed a Supplementary Record of appeal on 14th September, 2017 annexing the decree issued in the lower court. This was after the application was served upon them. I do not understand why they failed to respond to the Application herein. It is now two and a half years since the Appellants obtained the stay orders and it is in the intersect of justice that the Appeal be heard promptly in fairness to the Respondents who have a decree which they would like to execute. The Record of Appeal was filed on 24th March, 2017 and since then, the Appellants have not set down the Appeal for directions for a period of seven (7) months.
Though the Appellants deposited the decretal amount in a joint account in the year 2016, I find that they are not keen on prosecuting the Appeal. It is only after the Applicant herein raised the issue of the decree having not been attached to the Record of Appeal that the Appellants moved to Court to file the supplementary record but failed to file a Reply to this application.
In view of the aforegoing, I find that the application has merits and I allow the same with costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 6thDay of December, 2017.
…………........
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the Presence of
…………………………. For the 1st Appellant
…………………………. For the 2nd Appellant
…………………………. For the 1st Respondent
…………………………. For the 2nd Respondent