[2002] KECA 256 (KLR)

[2002] KECA 256 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any urgency in the application for stay of execution. The judgment intended to be appealed against was delivered on 13th October, 2000, and there was no evidence presented to show that the appeal was arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KECA 256 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Gateway Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Credit Kenya Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 222 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Outcome
application refused with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Urgency of Application, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Urgency of Application Appeals Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gateway Insurance Company Limited

Applicant

Credit Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution should be certified as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any urgency in the application for stay of execution. The judgment intended to be appealed against was delivered on 13th October, 2000, and there was no evidence presented to show that the appeal was arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if the application was not heard urgently. The grounds set out in the supporting affidavit did not satisfy the court as to the existence of urgency. Consequently, the application for urgency was refused with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application refused with costs

Orders

  • The application for urgency is refused.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of this application.