[2021] KEHC 4226 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 4226 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had demonstrated substantial loss would be suffered if stay was not granted, as the attached equipment was highly specialized, expensive, and constituted the appellant's only source of income. The court further held that, in the circumstances, there was no need to order the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 4226 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Blue Sky World Limited; Respondent: Cassamia Investments Limited; Respondent: Arfa Arfa Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E168 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Injunctions, Distress for Rent, Objection Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Injunctions Distress for Rent Objection Proceedings

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

Parties

Blue Sky World Limited

Appellant

Cassamia Investments Limited

Respondent

Arfa Arfa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to an order for stay of execution of the dismissal order pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether a temporary injunction should issue to restrain the 1st respondent from selling or interfering with the attached property pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had demonstrated substantial loss would be suffered if stay was not granted, as the attached equipment was highly specialized, expensive, and constituted the appellant's only source of income. The court further held that, in the circumstances, there was no need to order the appellant to provide security for the due performance of the decree since the 1st respondent was still holding the attached property. The court concluded that granting a stay would maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the appellant pending the determination of the appeal. Accordingly, the motion for stay of execution and injunction was allowed.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • There be an order for stay of execution of the dismissal order issued on 15th March 2021 pending appeal.
  • There be an order restraining the 1st respondent from selling, disposing of, or interfering with the attached property pending appeal.