[2014] KEHC 5952 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 5952 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay and that the applicants had expressed a reasonable apprehension of substantial loss if the decretal sum was paid and the respondent was unable to refund it should the appeal succeed. The court noted that the respondent's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 5952 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Bolpak Trading Company Ltd.; Appellant: Andrew Mbiku Sila; Respondent: Bentata Elisi Wambua
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 191 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
Stay of execution granted on condition of deposit of decretal sum.
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, Appeal Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Substantial Loss Appeal Process

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

Parties

Bolpak Trading Company Ltd.

Appellant

Andrew Mbiku Sila

Appellant

Bentata Elisi Wambua

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether substantial loss may result to the applicants if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay and that the applicants had expressed a reasonable apprehension of substantial loss if the decretal sum was paid and the respondent was unable to refund it should the appeal succeed. The court noted that the respondent's means were not established and that the interests of both parties would be protected by requiring the applicants to deposit the entire decretal sum in court or in a joint interest-earning account. This would secure the respondent's entitlement while safeguarding the applicants' right of appeal, thus satisfying the requirements for stay under Order 42 rule 6(2).

Court Disposition

Stay of execution granted on condition of deposit of decretal sum.

Orders

  • The applicants shall deposit the entire decretal sum in court or in a joint interest earning account of both parties within 30 days from the date hereof.
  • In default of such deposit, execution to issue.