[2018] KEELC 752 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not offered any security for the due performance of the decree nor provided any substantive reason for the appeal. The costs had been taxed by consent, and the application for stay was considered an afterthought and an abuse of the court process. The applicant failed to satisfy...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 752 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Festus Luseka; Respondent: Rev. Fr. Cornelus Bahati; Respondent: Raphael Katambani; Respondent: Gabriel Munyasa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 330 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Costs Awards, Security for Costs, 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
Festus Luseka
Applicant
Rev. Fr. Cornelus Bahati
Respondent
Raphael Katambani
Respondent
Gabriel Munyasa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the order for costs pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not offered any security for the due performance of the decree nor provided any substantive reason for the appeal. The costs had been taxed by consent, and the application for stay was considered an afterthought and an abuse of the court process. The applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 for the grant of a stay of execution. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 330 OF 2013
FESTUS LUSEKA...............................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
REV. FR. CORNELUS BAHATI
RAPHAEL KATAMBANI
GABRIEL MUNYASA...........................DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
RULING
This application is dated 4th September 2018 and is brought under order 42rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010of the Civil Procedure Act seeking the following orders;
1. That execution of order for costs be stayed pending the hearing and determination of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2018 Kisumu.
2. That costs be in the course.
It is based on following grounds and the supporting affidavit of the plaintiff/applicant and other reasons that the plaintiff has appealed inter alia against the award of costs.The defendants have taxed their bill for costs and are about to carry out execution against the plaintiff/applicant for the costs.Execution for costs will render the plaintiffs appeal against costs nugatory.
The respondent submitted that, this case was dismissed with costs on 1/3/2016. That the plaintiffs’ application dated 9/8/2016 seeking to set aside the order of 1/3/2016 was dismissed with costs on 27/6/2018. That they filed the defendants bill of costs dated 3/7/2018 which was on 30/8/2018 by consent taxed at Ksh. 101,625/=.That the execution is solely to recover costs awarded, and an attempt to stay the process is contrary to known principles.That the applicant has not fulfilled the conditions set in order 42 rules 6 (2) of the civil Procedure Rules 2010. That the applicant has not deposited or offered to deposit the amount or any security. That they are able and will be ready to refund Ksh. 101,625 or any amount recovered.That the application is calculated to prejudice them and defeat recovery of costs awarded.That the appeal has no chances of success.
This court has carefully considered the application and the submissions therein. It is not disputed that the costs were taxed by consent. I find that this application is an afterthought and an abuse of the court process. The applicant has not offered any security nor any reason for the appeal. I find this application has no merit and I dismiss it with costs.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT THIS 21STDAY OF NOVEMBER 2018.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE