[2000] KECA 337 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the applicants were not entitled to a stay of execution because no appeal had been filed against the summary judgment of 16 June 1998, nor had leave to appeal been obtained in respect of the ruling of 11 August 1999. The court found that, in the absence of a right of appeal, there could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KECA 337 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: David Kiberia; Applicant: Quinstar (K) Limited; Respondent: Meru Central Farmers Co-operative Union Limited; Respondent: National Bank of Kenya
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 284 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- JE Gicheru, EO O'Kubasu
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Appealability, Costs Award
- 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
David Kiberia
Applicant
Quinstar (K) Limited
Applicant
Meru Central Farmers Co-operative Union Limited
Respondent
National Bank of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the High Court ruling and order dated 11 August 1999 pending appeal.
- 2 Whether there exists a right of appeal against the ruling of 11 August 1999 without leave of court.
- 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated an arguable appeal against the judgment or ruling in question.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the applicants were not entitled to a stay of execution because no appeal had been filed against the summary judgment of 16 June 1998, nor had leave to appeal been obtained in respect of the ruling of 11 August 1999. The court found that, in the absence of a right of appeal, there could be no stay pending appeal. Furthermore, the court was not persuaded that there was any arguable appeal against either the judgment or the ruling in question. Accordingly, the application for stay was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA & O'KUBASU, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 284 OF 1999 BETWEEN DAVID KIBERIA ................................................................................ 1STAPPLICANT QUINSTAR (K) LIMITED ................................................................... 2NDAPPLICANT AND MERU CENTRAL FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED .... 1STRESPONDENT NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA ........................................................... 2NDRESPONDENT
(Application for stay of Execution of the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Hon. Commissioner of Assize G.A. Omwitsa's) dated 11th August, 1999 and all consequential orders
in H.C.C.C. NO. 328 OF 1994) *************
RULING OF THE COURT
This is an application by the unsuccessful defendants under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (the Rules) seeking a stay of execution of the ruling and order of the superior court given on 11 August 1999 and of the decree therein pending an appeal and a further order for stay of proceedings inMeru HCCC 328 of 1994 pending the appeal.The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated. On 16 June, 1998 the superior court, pursuant to an application made on behalf of the First Respondent, entered summary judgment against the applicants in the sum of K.Shs.455,560/=and costs and interest. A notice of appeal was filed against the judgment but no appeal has as yet been filed. Nor did the record of this application have a certified copy of the judgment included therein. The applicants then applied to the superior court by their application dated 10 December, 1998 to have the judgment set aside and alternatively for a stay. This application was brought under Order 41 rule 4 and Order 1 rules 16 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The same was on 11 August, 1999 dismissed.
We have carefully considered the application made to us for a stay. In the first place, no appeal has been preferred against the judgment entered on 16 June, 1998. We are not persuaded that such an appeal would, in any event, be arguable. Additionally no application for stay has been made pending an appeal against judgment of 16 June, 1998.
As for the ruling of the superior court given on 11 August, 1999 there is no right of appeal without leave. No such leave having been obtained, there is no right of appeal and there can be no stay pending an appeal if there can be no appeal. In any event, we have not been persuaded that there is any arguable appeal against the ruling of the superior court of 11 August, 1999.
For the reasons above stated, this application fails and is dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 11th day of February,
2000.
J.E. GICHERU
..................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.A. LAKHA
...................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E. O'KUBASU
..................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is
a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR