[2014] KEHC 4988 (KLR)
The court found that the application was not incurably defective despite the absence of an annexed order, as the order sought to be reviewed was part of the court record. Guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, the court prioritized substantive justice over technicalities. Considering the applicant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4988 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Heads U Win Salon; Respondent: Ram Development Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 163 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Security for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- JV Juma
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Review of Court Orders
- 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
Heads U Win Salon
Appellant
Ram Development Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Security for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for review of the amount of security for stay of execution is incurably defective for failure to annex the order sought to be reviewed.
- 2 Whether the amount of security ordered (Kshs. 300,000) should be reviewed downwards due to the applicant's financial circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was not incurably defective despite the absence of an annexed order, as the order sought to be reviewed was part of the court record. Guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, the court prioritized substantive justice over technicalities. Considering the applicant's financial circumstances and the interests of justice, the court reviewed its earlier order and reduced the security for stay of execution from Kshs. 300,000 to Kshs. 200,000, to be paid within thirty days, failing which the stay would lapse. The appeal was to be prosecuted within ninety days, and each party was to bear its own costs for the application.
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The security for stay of execution is reviewed and set at Kshs. 200,000 to be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling.
- If the security is not paid within thirty (30) days, the stay orders will automatically lapse.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2012
HEADS U WIN SALON.........................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAM DEVELOPMENT LTD.............................................RESPONDENT
RULING
Before court is the notice of motion application dated 16th September, 2013 in which the applicant seeks inter alia orders as follows:
“2. THAT the court review its orders on the amount of security from Kshs. 300,000/= to a reasonable figure.
3. THAT pending the hearing of this application there be a stay of execution of the ruling delivered on the 23rd August, 2013. ”
The application was supported by the affidavit of the applicant NAOMI WARUI dated 16th September, 2013. The application was opposed by way of the replying affidavit of KUNJ GUPTA dated 26th September, 2013. On 17th September, 2003 the court granted a temporary stay of execution pending the determination of this present application. The application arose from the ruling of the court delivered on 23rd August, 2013. In that ruling the court granted a stay of the judgment delivered on 21st August, 2012 subject to the applicant depositing the sum of Kshs. 300,000/= as security within 21 days.
I have carefully perused the submissions filed by both parties. The respondent submits that the entire application is incurably defective on grounds that the orders sought to be reviewed were not annexed to the application. However I do agree with counsel for the applicant that there cannot be said to be any mystery and/or any confusion regarding the orders sought to be reviewed as the same forms part of the court record. I am guided by section 159(2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya which exhorts courts to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities. I therefore find that the present application is not incurably defective.
The applicant submits that she is not able to raise the court ordered security of Kshs. 300,000/= due to the state of her business at the current time. She requests that the court do review this amount downwards to Kshs. 100,000/=. Taking into account all relevant factors, I am satisfied that the present application is merited and I hereby review my earlier orders. I direct that the applicant do pay a security of Kshs. 200,000/= within a period of thirty (30) days from today’s date failing which the stay orders in force will automatically lapse. The appeal to be prosecuted within ninety (90) days (subject to the availability of court dates). Each party to meet its own costs for this application.
Dated and delivered in Mombasa this 28th day of May, 2014.
M. ODERO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
No appearance by either party