[2018] KEHC 818 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 818 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained the delay in filing the application, primarily due to the judgment being delivered without notice to the parties. The court accepted the applicant's apprehension regarding the respondent's ability to repay the decretal sum as a valid ground for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 818 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Brass and Allied Works Ltd; Respondent: Charles Ndegwa Wagura; Respondent: John Kanina; Respondent: Joseph Mukuna
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 218 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Security for Decretal Sum
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Out of Time Security for Decretal Sum

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brass and Allied Works Ltd

Applicant

Charles Ndegwa Wagura

Respondent

John Kanina

Respondent

Joseph Mukuna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has sufficiently explained the delay in filing the application for stay and leave to appeal out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether sufficient security has been offered for the due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained the delay in filing the application, primarily due to the judgment being delivered without notice to the parties. The court accepted the applicant's apprehension regarding the respondent's ability to repay the decretal sum as a valid ground for substantial loss. The offer to deposit the entire decretal sum in an interest earning account in the joint names of both advocates was deemed adequate security. Consequently, the court allowed the application for stay of execution and granted leave to file the appeal out of time, subject to the condition that the decretal sum be deposited as proposed within 30 days.

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • Application allowed in terms of prayers No. 3 and 4.
  • Applicant to deposit the entire decretal sum in an interest earning account in the joint names of both advocates within 30 days.