[2015] KEHC 4186 (KLR)
The court found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate, either in its affidavit or otherwise, the substantial loss it would suffer if the stay of execution was not granted. The Defendant's submissions regarding potential loss were not supported by evidence in the affidavit, and it is not the court's role to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4186 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fleetwood Enterprises Ltd; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 5 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss Requirement, Security for Due Performance, 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
Fleetwood Enterprises Ltd
Plaintiff
Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant has demonstrated substantial loss that would result if the stay of execution is not granted.
- 2 Whether the application for stay of execution meets the requirements under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate, either in its affidavit or otherwise, the substantial loss it would suffer if the stay of execution was not granted. The Defendant's submissions regarding potential loss were not supported by evidence in the affidavit, and it is not the court's role to speculate or investigate such loss on behalf of a party. The requirements under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules were therefore not satisfied. As a result, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 13th January 2015 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
HCCC NO. 5 OF 2010
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES LTD...............PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
=VERSUS=
KENYA POWER & LIGHTING CO. LTD.......DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
Introduction:
1. What is before me is the Defendant's Application dated 13th January 2015 seeking for the following orders:
(a) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a stay of execution of Judgment delivered on 7th November 2014, decree and all other consequential orders emanating therefrom pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
(b) THAT cost of this Application be provided for.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Applicant has already preferred an appeal against the Judgment of the court; that the appeal will be rendered nugatory unless the Judgment delivered on 7th November 2014 is stayed and that no prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiff if the application is allowed.
3. The Plaintiff filed Grounds of Opposition in which it averred that the Application does not demonstrate the substantial loss it will suffer if the orders of stay are not granted; that the Defendant has therefore failed to satisfy the main requirement for the grant of an order of stay and that the Application lacks merit.
4. The Defendant's advocate submitted that the Judgment of the court poses a great threat to the Applicant; that removing the supply lines will cripple the Applicant's source of revenue and that the Applicant will suffer great loss unless the order of stay is granted.
5. The Plaintiff's counsel submitted that the Defendant has not demonstrated that it will suffer substantial loss if the stay sought is not granted; that a review of the Affidavit of Jane Boil confirms that nowhere in the affidavit has it been alleged that the Defendant will suffer substantial loss and that the Application should be dismissed.
6. The Plaintiff's counsel submitted that it is not for the court to investigate the loss that shall be suffered by the Defendant if the order of stay is not granted.
7. Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that no order of stay of execution shall be made unless the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the Applicant unless the order is made and the application has been made without unreasonable delay. The Applicant is also supposed to give security for the due performance of the decree.
8. I have gone through the entire Supporting Affidavit of Janet Boil, the Defendant's Assistant Legal Officer.
9. In the Affidavit, the Defendant's Legal Officer does not state how the Defendant shall suffer substantial loss, or any loss, if the order of stay is not granted.
10. It is not for this court to investigate or speculate the kind of loss that the Applicant is likely to suffer if it re-routes its supply lines to serve its clients pending the hearing of the Appeal.
11. It is not right for the Applicant's advocates to raise the kind of loss that shall be suffered by his client in the submissions. Natural justice demands that a party ought to be given an opportunity to respond to allegations or issues raised by the opposite party in his affidavit.
12. Having failed to state the loss it shall suffer if it complies with the Judgment of this court, I decline to allow the Application dated 13th January 2015. The Application dated 13th January 2015 is therefore dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered in Malindi this 3rd day of July2015.
O. A. Angote
Judge