[2017] KEHC 7228 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed timeously and that the appellant's offer to provide security by depositing the decretal sum in a joint interest account sufficiently protected the respondent's interests. The court noted that the appellant has a right of appeal and that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7228 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Hwangsung Industries Limited; Respondent: Peter Mulinge Syanda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 576 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Personal Injury, Security for Decretal Sum
- 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
Hwangsung Industries Limited
Appellant
Peter Mulinge Syanda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a stay of execution of the lower court judgment pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the offer to deposit security is adequate to protect the respondent's interests.
- 3 Whether the application was filed without undue delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed timeously and that the appellant's offer to provide security by depositing the decretal sum in a joint interest account sufficiently protected the respondent's interests. The court noted that the appellant has a right of appeal and that the Memorandum of Appeal raises substantial arguable issues. The court was not persuaded that the amount awarded was substantial enough to deny the stay, and therefore allowed the application for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, subject to the appellant depositing the decretal sum in an interest-earning account in the names of both advocates within 30...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed.
Orders
- There shall be a stay of execution of the lower court judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
- The appellant shall deposit the decretal sum in an interest-earning account in the names of both advocates within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT APPEAL NO. 576 OF 2016
HWANGSUNG INDUSTRIES LIMITED............APPELLANT
VERSUS
PETER MULINGE SYANDA...........................RESPODNENT
RULING
The lower court gave judgment in favour of the respondent against the applicant herein following a personal injury claim. The judgment of the lower court is not part of this record but from the Memorandum of Appeal dated 1st September and filed on 6th September, 2016, the respondent was injured within the premises of the appellant in the course of some duties. An award of Kshs. 90,000/= was given as general damages plus costs and interest. The appellant filed an appeal arising therefrom.
There is now before me an application by way of Notice of Motion under Order 42 Rule 6 (1) and (2) and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking an order that there be a stay of execution of the lower court judgment pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
It is the appellant’s case that if the order is not granted, substantial loss may result and that the application has been brought without undue delay. It is also the appellant’s case that it is ready to offer security by depositing half of the decretal amount in a joint interest account in the names of both counsel on record. Both counsel have filed written submissions and cited some authorities which I have noted.
The application was filed timeously and the appellant cannot be faulted in that regard. The affidavit in support of the application was sworn by one Jae Young Jang who described himself as the applicant. The appellant is a limited liability company, so the deponent cannot be the applicant as the two are two separate legal entities. That notwithstanding I see no prejudice and in any case the decision shall not turn on the description of parties. The appellant has the right of appeal and the Memorandum of Appeal raises substantial arguable issues.
There is an offer to provide security and so the respondent cannot submit that his judgment is not secured. Although the appellant has offered to deposit half of the decretal sum, the amount awarded does not appear substantial.
Accordingly I am persuaded that the application should be allowed. There shall be a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The appellant shall deposit the decretal sum in an interest earning account in the names of both advocates within 30 days from the date of this ruling. The costs shall be on appeal.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 2nd Day of March, 2017
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE