[2012] KEHC 4635 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was brought without undue delay but failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the decretal sum was paid to the respondent. The court emphasized that the mere possibility that the respondent may not be able to refund the decretal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4635 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Del Monte (K) Ltd; Respondent: Josephine Syombua Mutinda; Respondent: Roman Mutua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 1043 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal to the Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Industrial Accident Liability, Employer Negligence, Appeals Process
- 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
Del Monte (K) Ltd
Appellant
Josephine Syombua Mutinda
Respondent
Roman Mutua
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the appeal raises a pure point of law justifying stay.
- 3 Whether payment of the decretal sum would render the appeal nugatory if successful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was brought without undue delay but failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the decretal sum was paid to the respondent. The court emphasized that the mere possibility that the respondent may not be able to refund the decretal sum, due to alleged poverty, is not sufficient ground to deny release of the funds. The court also noted that the appeal to the Court of Appeal was on a point of law, but this alone did not justify a stay. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is declined.
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CRIMINAL APPEAL 489 OF 2007
DEL MONTE (K) LTD ……………………………..…….….… APPELLANT/ORIGINAL DEFENDANT
VERSUS
JOSEPHINE SYOMBUA MUTINDA &
ROMAN MUTUA
(suing as the administrators and personal representatives of
JOHN MUTINDA KWINGA (DECEASED) .………………RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS
(Being an appeal arising from the Judgment of Hon. F Nyakundi Senior Resident Magistrate in Civil Case No. 443 of 2002 dated 4th December 2007 at Thika)
R U L I N G
Application for Stay of Execution
Pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Notice of Motion 31st January 2012
I.INTRODUCTION
1. Judgment in favour of the respondent/original plaintiff was entered by the subordinate courts in an industrial accident case whereby the respondent, an employee, was to work on a night shift in his place of work. He began work at 7. 30 pm and by 10. 00 - 10. 15 pm or thereabouts. He was found dead.
2. The Hon. Trial Magistrate found the employer liable for the deceased’s death at 100%. An award was granted of Ksh. 190,430/- all inclusive, that included payments under the Law Reform Act.
3. The appellant/employer filed appeal to the High Court. This High Court upheld the decision of the Hon. Trial Magistrate.
4. Being aggrieved, the employer intends to appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. In the meantime an application dated
31st January 2012 is filed seeking stay of execution pending the hearing of the said appeal.
IIAPPLICATION 31ST JANUARY 2012
5. The applicant/employer herein states that his High Court failed to distinguish between a workman’s compensation and a claim of negligence.
6. That the appellant/defendant/employer had not been negligent and no proof of this had been shown.
7. That the cause of death was unknown yet the Hon. Judge stated this was not disputed.
8. There was therefore no proof of what caused the death of the deceased.
9. The appellant prayed that the decretal sum held in court be not released to the respondent pending the hearing of the appeal.
10. In reply the respondent stated that an appeal to the Court of Appeal should be on a pure point of law. This was not the case herein. That there was no pure point of law raised herein.
IIIFINDINGS
11. The application for stay of execution has been brought without inordinate delay. The issue before me is whether there would be a probable chance of success in the appeal that if per chance the applicant is successful and the decretal sum is paid to the respondent, the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
12. Whereas the issue in the Court of Appeal is on a pure point of law, the question as to whether the appeal would be successful or not on a point of law would be considered by that Court of Appeal.
13. The only fear would be that the respondent may be “a woman of straw” to her late husband’s estate. The courts in the past have noted that being poor should not be a basis in which a decretal sum should not be released and paid to a litigant.
14. This court herein finds that the application for stay of execution is declined. The same is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2012 AT NAIROBI
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates:
i) K. McCourt instructed by M/s Kairu & McCourt & Co Advocates for
applicant/appellant
ii) C W Githae instructed by Githae Co Advocates for
respondent/respondent