[2022] KEHC 1137 (KLR)

[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
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Substantial Loss Appeals Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Directline Assurance Company Limited

Applicant

Wilson Wanyoike Njoroge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 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.