[2021] KEELC 1903 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 1903 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was made eight months after the decree, constituting unreasonable delay without sufficient explanation. The applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result from execution, as the loss was limited to the taxed costs, which could be refunded...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 1903 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Prof. Francis Ephraim Onyango; Defendant: Georges Aertssen; Defendant: Christine Anyango Okallo; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: District Land Registrar Kisumu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 11 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
conditional stay of execution granted
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals, Security for Decree, Taxed Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Appeals Security for Decree Taxed Costs

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prof. Francis Ephraim Onyango

Plaintiff

Georges Aertssen

Defendant

Christine Anyango Okallo

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

District Land Registrar Kisumu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal was made without unreasonable delay.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether security for due performance of the decree should be furnished.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was made eight months after the decree, constituting unreasonable delay without sufficient explanation. The applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result from execution, as the loss was limited to the taxed costs, which could be refunded if the appeal succeeded. Nonetheless, the court exercised its discretion to grant a conditional stay of execution, requiring the applicant to deposit the decretal amount plus the bill of costs within 30 days as security for the due performance of the decree, in accordance with Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court Disposition

conditional stay of execution granted

Orders

  • Stay of execution pending appeal is granted on condition that the applicant deposits the decretal amount plus the bill of costs within 30 days from the date of the ruling.