[2020] KEHC 4385 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed promptly after the judgment, satisfying the requirement of timeliness. The applicant demonstrated that it would suffer substantial loss if the decretal sum was paid out and the appeal succeeded, as the respondents lacked known assets or financial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 4385 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Car and General (Trading) Limited; Respondent: Marion Wairimu Muriithi & Virgiona Wacheke Muriithi (as administrators of the Estate of Monica Wangeci Mureithi, Deceased); Respondent: Peter Njeru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 71 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- conditional stay of execution granted pending appeal
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, Timeliness of 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
Car and General (Trading) Limited
Applicant
Marion Wairimu Muriithi & Virgiona Wacheke Muriithi (as administrators of the Estate of Monica Wangeci Mureithi, Deceased)
Respondent
Peter Njeru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed promptly after the judgment, satisfying the requirement of timeliness. The applicant demonstrated that it would suffer substantial loss if the decretal sum was paid out and the appeal succeeded, as the respondents lacked known assets or financial capacity to refund the amount. The court held that security for due performance is necessary, but recognized that the form of security need not always be monetary, especially considering the applicant's business concerns during the Covid-19 pandemic. Consequently, the court granted a conditional stay of execution, requiring the applicant to provide either a bank guarantee or...
Court Disposition
conditional stay of execution granted pending appeal
Orders
- Stay of execution granted on condition that the applicant provides either a bank guarantee or insurance bond covering the decretal sum of KES 2,511,275 within 45 days.
- In default of providing security, the motion will be treated as dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 71 OF 2020
CAR AND GENERAL (TRADING) LIMITED...........................APPELLANT/APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
MARION WAIRIMU MURIITHI & VIRGIONA WACHEKE
MURIITHISuing as the administrators of the Estate of
MONICA WANGECI MUREITHI(Deceased)...........................................1st RESPONDENT
PETER NJERU...........................................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1) The subject matter of this ruling is the motion dated 4th March2020 in whichCar and General (Trading) Ltd, the appellant herein, sought for inter alia, an order for stay of execution pending appeal. The motion is supported by the affidavit of Joseph Mulwa Mwambi, the appellant’s logistics coordinator. The motion was electronically served upon the respondents who did not deem it fit to file a response nor written submissions as directed by the court, therefore the motion remains unopposed.
2) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motionplus the facts deponed in the supporting affidavit. I have also considered the written submissions filed by the appellant together with the cited authorities. It is the submission of the appellant that it should be given a temporary order for stay of execution pending appeal to maintain the status quo. It is stated that on 10. 2.2020 judgment was entered in favour of the respondents and against the appellant in the sum of ksh.2,511,275/= plus interest and cost by the trial court.
3) The appellant has now preferred this appeal to challenge thedecision of the trial court. It is the argument of the appellant that unless the order is given it may suffer substantial loss in that if the decretal amount is paid to the respondents, it will be extremely difficult to recover the same since the respondents are not in a position to refund the amount. It is argued that the respondents have no known assets nor financial capacity to make a refund should the appeal turn successful.
4) The principles to be considered in determining an application forstay are well settled.First, the application for stay should be timeously filed. In this case, the trial court pronounced its judgment on 10thFebruary 2020 and the application for stay was filed on 4thMarch 2020. I am convinced that the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay.
5) The second principle is that the applicant must show that itwould suffer substantial loss if the order for stay is denied. The appellant has stated that the respondents have no known assets nor finances to make a refund at the conclusion of the appeal if they are now paid. I am satisfied that the appellant has shown the substantial loss it would suffer if the order for stay is declined.
6) The final principle is the provision for security for the dueperformance of the decree. The appellant has beseeched this court to grant it an unconditional order for stay due to the current Covid 19 Pandemic since the award of the judgment is a huge amount hence its businesses may be negatively affected if it is ordered to make a cash deposit.
7) Having considered the material placed before me, it is clear inmy mind that this is a clear case where security for the due performance of the decree is necessary to be provided for. However, the type of security to be provided should not always be monetary. The appellant/applicant has clearly stated that if it is ordered to provide cash deposit its business may be negatively affected.
8) I grant the appellant an order for stay on condition that theappellant/applicant provides eithera bankers guaranteeor aninsurance bondcovering the decretal sum of ksh.2,511,275/= as security for the due performance of the decree within 45 days from the date hereof. In default the motion will be treated as having been dismissed. Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of the appeal.
Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually via Microsoft Teams at Nairobi this 10th day of July, 2020.
..........................
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………. for the Applicant
……………………………. for the Respondent