[2022] KEHC 1137 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant satisfied all three conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for the grant of stay of execution. The motion was filed promptly after the judgment, there was a reasonable demonstration of potential substantial loss if the stay was denied, and adequate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 1137 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Directline Assurance Company Limited; Respondent: Wilson Wanyoike Njoroge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E192 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for stay of execution granted
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, 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
Directline Assurance Company Limited
Applicant
Wilson Wanyoike Njoroge
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the security provided is sufficient for the due performance of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant satisfied all three conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for the grant of stay of execution. The motion was filed promptly after the judgment, there was a reasonable demonstration of potential substantial loss if the stay was denied, and adequate security had already been provided by the deposit of the decretal sum in a joint interest earning account. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the applicant the opportunity to pursue its appeal without the risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory, and that the respondent's objections did not sufficiently rebut the applicant's claims of potential loss. Consequently, the...
Court Disposition
application for stay of execution granted
Orders
- There shall be a stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 28th April, 2020 and all consequential orders on the condition that the amount of Kshs.1,025,600 deposited in a joint interest earning account continues to be held as security for this appeal and the intended appeal in the Court of Appeal.
- Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E192 OF 2020
DIRECTLINE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED....APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
WILSON WANYOIKE NJOROGE..............................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The appellant/applicant in this instance has brought the Noticeof Motion dated 12th January, 2022 supported by the grounds set out in its body and the facts stated in the affidavit of Julius Orenge. The applicant sought for an order for stay of execution of the judgment/decree delivered by the court on 30th December, 2021 and amount of Kshs.1,025,600/= deposited in joint interest earning account continues to be as security pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal.
2. The respondent put in a replying affidavit sworn by advocateJoseph Makumi on 24th January, 2022, to oppose the Motion.
3. When the Motion came up for interparties hearing before thiscourt, the parties respective advocates chose to rely on the averments made in their respective affidavits.
4. A brief background of the matter is that the respondent instituteda suit against the appellant seeking mandatory injunction compelling the appellant to pay the entire amount in HCC 193 OF 2016 and in effect refund the respondent the sum of Kshs.1,025,600 plus costs which led to the appeal HCCA No.192 of 2020.
5. The said appeal was dismissed with costs and being aggrieved bypart of the aforementioned judgment, the applicant desires to challenge it on appeal with the Court of Appeal.
6. The guiding provision in considering an application seeking anorder for a stay of execution is Order 42, Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules which sets out the following conditions in determining an application for stay:
a. The application should have been brought without unreasonable delay;
b. The applicant must demonstrate the substantial loss to be suffered; and
c. There must be provision of security for the due performance of the decree or order beingappealed against.
7. On the first condition, the applicant avers and submits that theMotion has been timeously filed. From my study of the record and the impugned judgment, I note that it was delivered on 30th December, 2021 which is barely two weeks prior to the filing of the instant Motion. I therefore find that there has been no unreasonable delay in bringing the Motion.
8. Under the second condition on substantial loss, it is apparentfrom the Motion that the applicant is anxious that unless an order for a stay of execution is granted, the respondent will execute and the applicant’s application will be rendered nugatory and they will stand to suffer irreparable loss and damage.
9. The applicant avers that they stand to suffer substantial andirreparable loss and damage as there is a likelihood that they may be proclaimed yet they have appealed to this court which appeal has a likelihood of success.
10. On the other hand the respondent states that the applicant hasfailed to demonstrate what substantial and irreparable loss it will suffer if the decretal amount is settled as mere averment without any evidence does not amount to loss.
11. I am also alive to the reality that unless the applicant is grantedan opportunity to defend its case, it stands to be condemned unheard, thereby undermining the dictates of substantive justice and violating the applicant’s constitutional right to be heard.
12. From the foregoing, I am convinced that the applicant hasreasonably shown the substantial loss it may suffer should the order for a stay of execution be denied.
13. In respect to the third and final condition, the applicant avers thatthe amount Kshs.1,025,600/= being the decretal sum deposited by the applicant in a joint interest earning account continue to be held as security for intended appeal in the Court of Appeal.
14. In the end therefore, the Motion dated 12th January 2022 is foundto be meritorious thus giving rise to issuance of the following orders:
i. There shall be a stay of execution of the ruling delivered on 28th April, 2020 and all consequential on the condition that the amount of Kshs.1,025,600/= deposited in a joint interest earning account continues to be held as security for this appeal and the intended Appeal in the Court of Appeal.
ii. Costs of the Motion to abide the outcome of the appeal.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
…….….…………….
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………. for the Applicant
……………………………. for the Respondent