[2000] KEHC 402 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not taken any substantive steps since the decree was issued, except for filing an unprosecuted application for stay. No notice of appeal had been filed or served, indicating a lack of seriousness and suggesting delaying tactics. The court was not satisfied that the requirements...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 402 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Commaert Hubert T/A World Clothes; Respondent: Elizabeth A Okech
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 790 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Security for Performance
- 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
Commaert Hubert T/A World Clothes
Applicant
Elizabeth A Okech
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the decree pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient security for the due performance of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not taken any substantive steps since the decree was issued, except for filing an unprosecuted application for stay. No notice of appeal had been filed or served, indicating a lack of seriousness and suggesting delaying tactics. The court was not satisfied that the requirements for granting a stay of execution under Order 41 rule 4(2) had been met, particularly regarding promptness and provision of security. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
1 Commaert Hubert T/A World Clothes & Another v Elizabeth A Okech
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi December 6, 2000
Milimani Commercial Courts
T Mbaluto, Judge
Civil Case No 790 of 1999
December 6, 2000 T Mbaluto, Judge delivered the following ruling.
This is an application for stay of execution until further orders and the release of motor vehicle registration number KAK 696R pending the hearing of an application filed herein on October 9, 2000.
The decree the execution of which is sought to be stayed was made by this court on August 25, 2000. On the same day the applicant was granted 30 days stay of execution so that she could decide what steps to take given the circumstances of the matter. Since that date, the applicant appears to have done absolutely nothing except the filing of an application for stay of the court orders pending appeal which application to this day remains unprosecuted. More telling is the fact that no notice of appeal has been filed or served upon the respondent. That conduct suggests that the applicant is engaged in delaying tactics.
Under Order 41 rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules:- “No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless:-
(a) 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
(b) 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.”
Though Mr Gaya who argued that application for the applicant submitted the applicant’s intended appeal, which he said had high chances of success would be rendered nugatory and that she would suffer irreparable loss if a stay was not ordered, I am not satisfied on account of what I have stated above, that the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the rule. For those reasons, the application in my view lacks substance and is dismissed with costs.