[2014] KEHC 5919 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay, as judgment was delivered on 11/10/2012 and the application filed on 18/3/2013. The applicants expressed a reasonable apprehension that the respondent may not be able to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 5919 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Bolpak Trading Company Ltd.; Appellant: Andrew Mbiku Sila; Respondent: Lucia Kathini Katana
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 193 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Stay Application
- Outcome
- conditional_stay_of_execution_granted
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Decree, Appeal Process, Substantial Loss, Delay in Application
- 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
Bolpak Trading Company Ltd.
Appellant
Andrew Mbiku Sila
Appellant
Lucia Kathini Katana
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether substantial loss may result to the applicants if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay, as judgment was delivered on 11/10/2012 and the application filed on 18/3/2013. The applicants expressed a reasonable apprehension that the respondent may not be able to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds, which could render the appeal nugatory and cause substantial loss. The court held 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 interests while safeguarding the applicants' right of appeal. The court thus granted a conditional...
Court Disposition
conditional_stay_of_execution_granted
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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2012
BOLPAK TRADING COMPANY LTD.
ANDREW MBIKU SILA ……………… APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS
VERSUS
LUCIA KATHINI KATANA ………………………………..…… RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application dated 14/3/2013 seeks an order of stay of execution of the Judgment/Decree obtained in SRMCC No. 17 of 2011 pending the hearing and determination of the Defendants’/Applicants’ appeal herein.
The application is supported by the affidavit in support sworn by Lindsey Mugambi, the Legal Officer of DirectlineInsurance Company Limited, the insurers of motor vehicle registration No. KBA 330Z. It is deponed in the said affidavit that the Applicants have filed an appeal against the judgment delivered by theSRM’s Court, Tawa on 11/10/12, wherein judgment was entered for the Respondent against the Applicants on a 100% liability basis. The Applicants are apprehensive that if the decretal sum is paid to the Respondent, the Respondent may not be in a position to refund the same if the intended appeal is successful as the Respondent is of unknown means. The Applicants have further asserted that they have made this application without delay and they are ready to deposit security. The Applicants posited that if there is no stay of execution, execution will take place thereby rendering the appeal nugatory.
In opposition to the application, the Respondent, Lucia Kathini Katana swore a replying affidavit on 27/3/13. It is contended by the Respondent that the appeal has no chances of success and that the application is brought with the intention of delaying the Respondent from enjoying the fruits of her judgment. The Respondent also stated that she is a woman of means and is capable of refunding the Kshs.155,621/= decretal sum.
The application was canvassed by way of written submissions which I have duly considered.
Under Order 42 rule 6 (2) states as follows:
“No order for stay of execution shall be made undersubrule (1)unless –
The court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and
Such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.”
The application herein was filed without unreasonable delay. Judgment was entered on 11/10/2012 and the instant application filed on 18/3/2013. In any event the issue of delay has not been raised by the Respondent.
The Applicants have expressed their fear that if the decretal sum is paid, the Respondent may not be able to refund the same in the event that the appeal is successful.
In the event that the Respondent is unable to refund the decretal sum, the appeal will be rendered nugatory thereby causing substantial loss to the Applicant.
Liability was denied and the trial court found the Applicants 100% liable for the accident. It is rather difficult to tell at this stage what will be the final decision in the appeal. In the circumstances of this case the interests of both parties will be taken care of by the deposit of the entire decretal sum in court or in a joint interest earning account of both parties. Consequently, I order that such a deposit be make within 30 days from date hereof. In default execution to issue.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE
Dated and delivered at Machakos this 20thday of March2014.
………………………………………
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE