[2013] KEHC 1065 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 1065 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer substantial loss if required to maintain his children, and in fact, the greater loss would be suffered by the children if maintenance was withheld. The applicant also failed to explain the nearly ten-month delay in filing the application for stay, which constituted laches. Furthermore, the applicant did not satisfy the court that he had provided security for the due performance of the decree. As such, the mandatory conditions for the grant of stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules were not met. Granting a stay would unjustly deprive the children of necessary support and would be contrary to...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 1065 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: D K N; Respondent: E W M
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Murang'a
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Case Number
Civil Appeal 1 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Stay of Execution, Parental Responsibility, Delay in Filing, Discretionary Remedies
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Child Maintenance Stay of Execution Parental Responsibility Delay in Filing Discretionary Remedies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D K N

Appellant

E W M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether delay in filing the application disentitles the applicant to discretionary relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer substantial loss if required to maintain his children, and in fact, the greater loss would be suffered by the children if maintenance was withheld. The applicant also failed to explain the nearly ten-month delay in filing the application for stay, which constituted laches. Furthermore, the applicant did not satisfy the court that he had provided security for the due performance of the decree. As such, the mandatory conditions for the grant of stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules were not met. Granting a stay would unjustly deprive the children of necessary support and would be contrary to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 19th September, 2013 is rejected with costs.