[2017] KEHC 1443 (KLR)
The court held that the decretal amount for purposes of the conditional stay order meant the principal sum awarded in the lower court, not including interest and costs, as no formal decree specifying interest had been issued. The appellant was therefore correct in depositing one half of the principal amount. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1443 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Fidelity Shield Insurance Co. Ltd; Respondent: Pamela Atieno Waga
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 19 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Clarification and Extension of Time Regarding Conditional Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application allowed in terms of prayers two and three; each party to bear own costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Decretal Amount, Enlargement of Time, Conditional Orders
- 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
Fidelity Shield Insurance Co. Ltd
Appellant
Pamela Atieno Waga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Clarification and Extension of Time Regarding Conditional Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should clarify the exact amount to be deposited as a condition for stay of execution.
- 2 Whether the time for depositing the decretal amount should be enlarged given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the decretal amount for purposes of the conditional stay order meant the principal sum awarded in the lower court, not including interest and costs, as no formal decree specifying interest had been issued. The appellant was therefore correct in depositing one half of the principal amount. The delay in compliance was satisfactorily explained as arising from a genuine dispute over the interpretation of 'decretal amount.' The court found it just to clarify the order and enlarge the time for compliance, as the respondent did not dispute the explanation for the delay. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
application allowed in terms of prayers two and three; each party to bear own costs
Orders
- The court clarifies that the decretal amount refers to the principal sum only, i.e., Kshs. four (4) million.
- The time for depositing one half of the decretal amount in a joint interest earning account is enlarged by a further twenty one (21) days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2017
FIDELITY SHIELD INSURANCE CO. LTD ……...……………..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
PAMELA ATIENO WAGA …….…………………..….………... RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Judgment in Kisii CMCC No. 291 of 2012
(Hon. J.M. NJoroge - CM.)
JUDGMENT
1. A Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2017, was filed by the appellant/applicant, Fidelity Shield Insurance Co. Ltd, seeking orders that there be a stay of execution of the judgment entered against it on the 21st March 2017, in Kisii CMCC No. 291 of 2012pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
Inter-parties hearing of the application was slated for 9th May 2017 when the respondent despite being served with the necessary hearing notice failed to appear.
Mr. Ngethe, on behalf of the appellant was allowed by the court to proceed with the application in the absence of the respondent and/or her counsel.
2. Thereafter, this court in a ruling made on the same day allowed the application in terms of prayer (3) of the appropriate notice of motion to the extent that one half of the decretal amount be deposited in an interest earning bank account in the joint names of the counsel for both the appellant and respondent within the next twenty one (21) days and in default the stay order do automatically lapse.
The applicant was thus granted a conditional stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
However, the present application dated 25th May 2017 was filed by the applicant seeking basic orders that the court orders and/or clarifies the exact amount to be deposited by the appellant in an interest earning bank account in the joint names of the advocates for both the appellant and the respondent and that time be enlarged for another twenty one (21) days to enable both advocates open a joint account and deposit the amount required.
3. The application is based on the grounds contained in the notice of motion dated 25th May 2017, as fortified by the averments in the supporting affidavit dated 25th May 2017, deponed by the counsel for the appellant as well as the oral submissions by the counsel at the hearing of the application.
The respondent opposes the application on the basis of the grounds contained in a replying affidavit dated 30th May 2017, deponed by her counsel and the oral submissions made by counsel, Mr. Juma, at the hearing of the application.
However, Mr. Juma, indicated that the respondent would have no objection to an enlargement of time to top up the amount already deposited by the appellant.
4. Having considered the application on the basis of the supporting grounds and the submissions by both sides and with regard to prayer (2), this court may for the avoidance of doubt affirm its order of the 9th May 2017, where it clearly stated that there shall be a stay of execution on condition that one half of the decretal amount be deposited in an interest earning account in the joint names of both counsels within a period of twenty one (21) days. It has been confirmed herein that an amount of Kshs. two (2) million representing one half of the decretal amount has since been deposited by the appellant in compliance with the order of this court although belatedly i.e past the prescribed period of time. There was indication that the delay was occasioned by a stalemate between the parties over the actual amount to be deposited.
5. Whereas the appellant understood the decretal amount to mean the principal amount only, the respondent understood it to mean the principal amount together with interest and costs.
As a clarification and for the purposes of this appeal, decretal amount would mean the principal amount only i.e Kshs. four (4) million which was the respondent’s claim against the appellant in the suit at the lower court. Therefore, the appellant was correct in depositing one half of such amount in terms of the court order of the 9th May 2017.
In any event, a formal decree had not been issued by the trial court to confirm the actual amount of interest payable by the appellant and therefore the decretal amount referred to by this court could not have meant the judgment (principal) amount together with interest.
Further, the draft decree served upon the appellant by the respondent was subject to approval and confirmation before it could be treated as a formal and final decree capable of being executed in accordance with the law.
6. In the circumstances, the draft decree could not at this juncture be relied upon to determine the actual amount due to the respondent from the appellant as interest.
For all the foregoing reasons prayer two (2) of the application is merited.
With regard to prayer three (3), the appellant has given a satisfactory explanation as to why one half of the decretal amount could not be deposited in a bank account within the prescribed time. The explanation was not disputed by the respondent and therefore this prayer is also merited.
In sum, the application is allowed in terms of prayers two (2) and three (3). Each party shall bear own costs.
[Delivered and signed this 1st day of August 2017].
J.R. KARANJAH
JUDGE
In the presence of
Mr. Ngethe for Appellant
Mr. Nyambati holding brief for Mr. Marwa
For the Respondent
CC Mohe