[2020] KEHC 2043 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants' dispute with their insurer was not a valid ground to stay execution against the respondent, who was entitled to enjoy the fruits of her judgment. The applicants were found blameworthy by the trial court and are bound to settle the decree and pursue their remedies against the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 2043 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Edward Bwisa; Appellant: Elizabeth Wabule Bwisa; Respondent: Christine Nafula
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 20 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent; applicants granted 45 days to settle decretal amount
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Decretal Settlement, Irreparable Loss, Insurer Liability
- 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
Edward Bwisa
Appellant
Elizabeth Wabule Bwisa
Appellant
Christine Nafula
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the lower court's decree pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the applicants' dispute with their insurer affects the respondent's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants' dispute with their insurer was not a valid ground to stay execution against the respondent, who was entitled to enjoy the fruits of her judgment. The applicants were found blameworthy by the trial court and are bound to settle the decree and pursue their remedies against the insurer separately. The application for stay of execution was therefore dismissed as unmeritorious. However, the court exercised discretion to allow the applicants 45 days to settle the decretal amount, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to execute the decree.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent; applicants granted 45 days to settle decretal amount
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- The applicants are granted 45 days from the date of the ruling to settle the decretal amount.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2020
EDWARD BWISA....................................................................1ST APPELLANT
ELIZABETH WABULE BWISA...........................................2ND APPELLANT
VERSES
CHRISTINE NAFULA................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Applicants pray that there be stay of execution of the Lower Courts Decree and judgement issued on the 17th February 2020 pending the determination of this application and thereafter the main appeal.
2. In their grounds on the face of the application the Applicants aver that they are filing this matter for the reasons basically that their Insurance Company AMACO ASSURANCE CO. has failed to settle the decree. That the mistake of their insurers should not be visited upon them.
3. The Supporting Affidavit of the 1st Applicant sworn on the 23rd September 2020 states as much including the chronology of his involvement with the Insurance Company. He says that as a result of that his goods have already been proclaimed and are at risk of being attached for sale. He prayed therefore that the application be allowed.
4. The respondent vide her Replying Affidavit dated 16th October 2020 has opposed the application on the grounds that the Applicants issue with their insurers cannot be visited on them. That they have waited for the last two years to enjoy the fruit of their judgement. She prayed that the application be disallowed.
5. The provisions of Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules are clear on the grounds to be considered before allowing such an application.
6. The issue is whether the Appellants /Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss should the application be issued and whether the intended appeal shall be rendered nugatory.
7. It is apparent that the issue has got nothing to do with the Respondent. This is merely a dispute between the Applicants and their insurers. Whether they delivered the summonses to them is an issue they need to litigate. The trial court found them blameworthy and awarded the Respondent a sum of Kshs. 155,550 plus costs. They are therefore bound to settle the decree and pursue their insurers.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this application is unmeritorious and the same is therefore dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
9. The court shall however grant the Applicants to settle the decretal amount within the next 45 days from the date herein and in default the respondent be at liberty to execute.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kitale this 29th day of October 2020.
__________________
H. K. CHEMITEI
JUDGE
29/10/2020