[2007] KEHC 2462 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if stay was not granted, as there was no evidence or averment that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The application for stay was also filed ten months after the dismissal of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2462 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Gikundi Kauruko; Respondent: Tharachi M’Emara
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 85 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Exparte Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Substantial Loss, Security for Stay
- 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
Gikundi Kauruko
Appellant
Tharachi M’Emara
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 41 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether there was unreasonable delay in bringing the application for stay.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss or offered security as required.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if stay was not granted, as there was no evidence or averment that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The application for stay was also filed ten months after the dismissal of the application to set aside the exparte judgment, which constituted unreasonable delay. Furthermore, the applicant did not offer any undertaking as to security. As none of the mandatory requirements under Order 41 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules were satisfied, the application for stay of execution was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THEE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
Civil Appeal 85 of 2006
GIKUNDI KAURUKO……………………...………………………APPELLANT
VERSUS
THARACHI M’EMARA…………………………………………RESPONDENT
(An appeal from the Ruling of Hon.Geofrey Oyugi (RM) dated 22nd August, 2006 in Tigania, RMCC NO.112 of 2005)
RULING
This application was argued exparte as the respondent, having been served with the same and the hearing date failed to reply or attend the hearing.
It is an application for stay of execution of a decree in Tigania SRMCC No.117/2005. The grounds upon which the application is premised are that the respondent brought a suit against the applicant in Tigania Court. That the case proceeded exparte after judgment was entered.
The applicant moved the court to set aside the said exparte proceedings and judgment but the application was dismissed, prompting him to file the present appeal. In the meantime the court has issued notice to show cause against the applicant.
The applicant now prays that the notice to show cause dated 11th May, 2007 be stayed pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. He argues that if execution proceeds the appeal shall be rendered nugatory.
The application is based on the provisions of Order 41 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, among other provisions. Under Rule 4 of Order 41 aforesaid an order of stay will issue if:-
(i) the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order of stay is made.
(ii) the application has been brought without unreasonable delay
(iii) the applicant has given undertaking as to security.
For the court to be satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant, it is incumbent upon the latter to demonstrate the nature and extend of the loss. He must also show how the appeal if successful will be rendered nugatory if an order of stay is not granted.
The applicant was expected to show, for instance, that should execution proceed and the decretal amount paid over to the respondent, the latter would not be in a position to refund the same in the event the appeal succeeds. There is no evidence or averment to that effect.
Secondly, the applicant’s application to set aside the exparte judgment was dismissed on 22nd August, 2006. The appeal herein was filed promptly on 30th August, 2006, but the application for stay filed 10 months after the dismissal. That constitutes unreasonable delay. Finally the applicant makes no offer to abide by any orders as to security.
The application must fail and is dismissed.
I make no orders as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 20TH DAY OF JULY 2007.
W. OUKO
JUDGE