[2019] KEHC 1397 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 1397 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had demonstrated a real risk of substantial loss if stay was not granted, given the respondent's unemployment and lack of evidence of ability to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed. The court held that the interests of both parties must be balanced, and that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 1397 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Equity Bank Limited; Respondent: Samuel Stanley Kiarie Mungai; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 170 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Malicious Prosecution, Substantial Loss, Security for Decretal Sum
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Stay of Execution Malicious Prosecution Substantial Loss Security for Decretal Sum

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Equity Bank Limited

Appellant

Samuel Stanley Kiarie Mungai

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's ability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds is in doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant should provide security for the due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had demonstrated a real risk of substantial loss if stay was not granted, given the respondent's unemployment and lack of evidence of ability to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed. The court held that the interests of both parties must be balanced, and that the appellant's right of appeal should not be rendered nugatory. Accordingly, the court allowed the application for stay of execution on condition that the appellant deposits the decretal sum in an interest-earning joint account in the names of both advocates within 30 days.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the lower court judgment granted pending appeal, on condition that the appellant deposits the decretal sum in an interest-earning account in the names of both advocates within 30 days.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.