[2018] KEHC 2592 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2592 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent was incapable of refunding the half decretal amount as ordered by the trial court. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted. Furthermore, the court held that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 2592 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: China Jiangxi International Ltd; Respondent: Festus Muriithi Gitonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 26 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
HK Chemitei
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Security for Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeals Process Security for Costs

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Jiangxi International Ltd

Appellant

Festus Muriithi Gitonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the respondent is incapable of refunding the decretal amount if the appeal succeeds.
  3. 3 Whether the conditions imposed by the trial court for stay pending appeal were unreasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent was incapable of refunding the half decretal amount as ordered by the trial court. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted. Furthermore, the court held that the conditions imposed by the trial court for stay pending appeal were not unreasonable. Consequently, the application for stay pending appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for stay pending appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs shall abide the appeal.