[2012] KEHC 4589 (KLR)
The court held that a stay of execution is only available where a positive order capable of execution has been made. Since the applicants' suit was dismissed and no such positive order was issued, there is nothing to stay. The application for stay of execution is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4589 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Ochieng Ododa and 84 others; Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 397 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Dismissal of Suit, Positive Orders, Appeal Procedure
- 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
George Ochieng Ododa and 84 others
Applicant
Kenya Railways Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution can be granted where the court has dismissed the suit and made no positive order.
- 2 Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that a stay of execution is only available where a positive order capable of execution has been made. Since the applicants' suit was dismissed and no such positive order was issued, there is nothing to stay. The application for stay of execution is therefore incompetent and must be dismissed. The court relied on established appellate authority that a dismissal does not create an executable order, and thus, the applicants' fears of eviction do not alter the legal position. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CIVIL SUIT NO.397 OF 1998
GEORGE OCHIENG ODODA AND 84 OTHERS……… PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS
VERSUS
KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION………...………..DEFENDENT/RESPONDENT
RULING
This court, on 9th May, 2011, dismissed the applicants’ suit against the respondent. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed a notice of appeal. In the meantime, they have brought the present application for orders of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of appeal. In their view, if the order of stay is not granted, the appeal will be rendered nugatory as the respondent will proceed to evict them from the quarters they occupy in the absence of an order of stay. They have further deposed that they have made the application without inordinate delay and are ready to furnish security as may be ordered.
In response, the respondent, through Victoria Mulwa, its Senior Legal Officer has averred that the suit having been dismissed, there was nothing left capable of being stayed; that the quarters in question belong to the respondent hence the applicants do not stand to suffer any loss; that the deponent of the affidavit in support of the application, Francis Macharia Njuguna did not have authority of the other applicants to swear the affidavit. The respondent has also argued that the applicants have not satisfied the conditions for the grant of the orders of stay of execution. Finally, it is the respondent’s prayer that should the court be inclined to grant the application, the applicants ought to be ordered to deposit into court all the accrued and subsequent monthly rent, to physically occupy the quarters (and not to sub-let or assign them), each applicant to furnish proof of their existence and continued interest in these proceedings and the applicants to be given a time frame within which to comply with these conditions.
It is now established beyond debate that only where a court makes a positive order – an order capable of execution – can it issue an order to stay their execution. In other words, where a matter has been dismissed, no positive order has been made hence there can be no stay of execution,
The Court of Appeal dealing with Order 5(2)(b) of that Court’s Rules in the case of RepublicV. Municipal Council of Mombasa and 2 others, ex parte Adopt-A-Light Limited, Civil Application No. NAI.15 of 2007 said:
“The court has no jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b) to stay the nullification of the resolution and the contract. It can only stay the execution of the decree or order of the superior court. The order of certiorarigranted by the superior court is not capable of execution as the superior court did not order any party to do anything or refrain from doing anything or to pay any sum (of money) other than costs.”
The same point was again emphasised by the Court of Appeal where the High Court had dismissed the appellant’s application for injunction. The court said:
“The second prayer (for stay of execution) in the application is incompetent because the superior court did not grant any order capable of execution, save for the order for the payment of costs.”
The court having dismissed the applicants’ suit against the respondent this application is clearly for dismissal. It is dismissed with costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 27th day of January, 2012.
W. OUKO
JUDGE