[2016] KEHC 5656 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 5656 (KLR)

The court found that while the appellant had not demonstrated what substantial loss it would suffer if stay was not granted, nor had the respondent shown its financial position to guarantee repayment, the appellant had already deposited Kshs.250,000 as security and was willing to provide more. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application for stay of execution, subject to the appellant providing further security and complying with conditions for prosecution of the appeal. The court emphasized the need for justice to both parties and the importance of expeditious prosecution of the appeal, ordering the record of appeal to be filed within 100 days, failing which the appeal...

Citation
[2016] KEHC 5656 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Formula Farm Feeds Ltd; Respondent: Primesoft Solutions Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 April 2016
Case Number
Civil Appeal 213 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution allowed on terms.
Judges
JK Mulwa
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, Appeal Rights, Money Decree, Case Management
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Substantial Loss Appeal Rights Money Decree Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Formula Farm Feeds Ltd

Appellant

Primesoft Solutions Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has satisfied the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules for grant of stay.
  3. 3 Whether sufficient security for due performance of the decree has been provided.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the appellant had not demonstrated what substantial loss it would suffer if stay was not granted, nor had the respondent shown its financial position to guarantee repayment, the appellant had already deposited Kshs.250,000 as security and was willing to provide more. The court exercised its discretion to allow the application for stay of execution, subject to the appellant providing further security and complying with conditions for prosecution of the appeal. The court emphasized the need for justice to both parties and the importance of expeditious prosecution of the appeal, ordering the record of appeal to be filed within 100 days, failing which the appeal...

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution allowed on terms.

Orders

  • The applicant shall provide further security for due performance of the decree in the sum of Kshs.200,000.
  • The sum of Kshs.250,000 already deposited in court as security shall be released to the appellant and together with the additional sum of Kshs.200,000, making a total of Kshs.450,000, shall within 45 days be deposited in an interest earning account in a reputable bank in the joint names of the advocates for both...