[2022] KEHC 16279 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 16279 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that substantial loss would occur if the decretal sum was paid out, given that the respondent was an insurance company capable of refunding the sum if the appeal succeeded. However, to balance the interests of both parties and in line with established...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 16279 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Miller Wanjala Bwire; Respondent: Stephen Kagwathii Gathii
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E594 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay Application Ruling
Outcome
Application for stay of execution allowed on conditions.
Judges
JN Mulwa
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Decretal Sum, Substantial Loss, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Decretal Sum Substantial Loss Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Miller Wanjala Bwire

Appellant

Stephen Kagwathii Gathii

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Stay Application Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's financial ability justifies the risk of substantial loss to the appellant if the decretal sum is paid out before determination of the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether security for the due performance of the decree should be ordered and in what form.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that substantial loss would occur if the decretal sum was paid out, given that the respondent was an insurance company capable of refunding the sum if the appeal succeeded. However, to balance the interests of both parties and in line with established parameters for granting stay, the court allowed the application for stay of execution on condition that 50% of the decretal sum be paid to the respondent within 21 days and the remaining 50% be held pending the appeal. The court further ordered the appellant to file the record of appeal within 60 days, failing which the stay would lapse.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution allowed on conditions.

Orders

  • The applicant/appellant to pay 50% of the decretal sum to the respondent through its advocates within 21 days of the ruling.
  • The balance of 50% of the decretal sum shall await the outcome of the appeal.