[2024] KEHC 11030 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 11030 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants had demonstrated an arguable appeal, the quantum of damages was substantial, and the respondent had not shown ability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The application for stay was made without unreasonable delay, and the appellants offered to provide security....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 11030 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Gitonga; Appellant: Silas Muthuri; Appellant: Peter Njunji; Respondent: Jane Sheila Kajuju Mutonga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 September 2024
Case Number
Civil Appeal E098 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed with conditions.
Judges
LW Gitari
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Decree, Substantial Loss, Appeal Rights, Money Decree, Timeliness of Application
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Decree Substantial Loss Appeal Rights Money Decree Timeliness of Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Gitonga

Appellant

Silas Muthuri

Appellant

Peter Njunji

Appellant

Jane Sheila Kajuju Mutonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are likely to suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants had demonstrated an arguable appeal, the quantum of damages was substantial, and the respondent had not shown ability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The application for stay was made without unreasonable delay, and the appellants offered to provide security. The court held that denying stay would risk rendering the appeal nugatory and cause substantial loss to the appellants. The court exercised its discretion to grant stay of execution, subject to the appellants paying one third of the decretal sum to the respondent and furnishing a bank guarantee as security for the due performance of the decree, in line with the requirements of...

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed with conditions.

Orders

  • There shall be stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Meru CMCC No. E407/21 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
  • The appellant to pay the respondent one third (1/3) of the decretal sum, that is Kshs. 450,000 within 14 days.