[2023] KEELC 17446 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 17446 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would result if stay was not granted, as there was no evidence that the suit properties were on the verge of auction or that execution would irreparably affect the appeal. The appellants also failed to explain the delay in filing the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 17446 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Gladys Ntiringa Gikundi; Appellant: Robert Gikundi; Respondent: Consolidated Bank of Kenya
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 19 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
CK Nzili
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Spousal Consent in Charges, Registration of Charge, Substantial Loss, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Spousal Consent in Charges Registration of Charge Substantial Loss Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Gladys Ntiringa Gikundi

Appellant

Robert Gikundi

Appellant

Consolidated Bank of Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether substantial loss has been demonstrated by the appellants if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants have offered adequate security for the due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would result if stay was not granted, as there was no evidence that the suit properties were on the verge of auction or that execution would irreparably affect the appeal. The appellants also failed to explain the delay in filing the application and did not provide details on the status of the land, the amount advanced by the respondent, or the adequacy of the security offered relative to the outstanding loan. The court concluded that the requirements for stay of execution had not been met and that granting the orders sought would not serve the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
  • Lower court file to be availed.