[2005] KEHC 3300 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was premature because neither a decree nor the relevant order had been issued or extracted. Order XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules can only be invoked where a decree or order exists, making execution imminent. Since this prerequisite was not met, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 3300 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Illiana Ingasiali Regina; Plaintiff: Florah Makokha Kundu; Defendant: Likhanga Shikami; Defendant: Kipngeny Kipngetich
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 123 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- JW Gacheche
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeals, Discretion of Court, Security for Due Performance
- 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
Illiana Ingasiali Regina
Plaintiff
Florah Makokha Kundu
Plaintiff
Likhanga Shikami
Defendant
Kipngeny Kipngetich
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / 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 XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the application is premature where no decree or order has been issued or extracted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was premature because neither a decree nor the relevant order had been issued or extracted. Order XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules can only be invoked where a decree or order exists, making execution imminent. Since this prerequisite was not met, the applicant failed to satisfy the necessary conditions for the grant of stay. The court therefore exercised its discretion to dismiss the application with costs, emphasizing that the right to stay is not automatic and must be grounded on compliance with procedural requirements.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
Civil Suit 123 of 1991 (OS)
ILLIANA INGASIALI REGINA
FLORAH MAKOKHA KUNDU ………….………………………..……… PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
LIKHANGA SHIKAMI
KIPNGENY KIPNGETICH ……………...…………………………...…… DEFENDANTS
RULING
This is an application for stay of execution of a judgment and decree pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal by KIPNGENY KIPNGETICH, who is the applicant herein and who was originally the 2nd defendant in the subordinate court. The 1st defendant is not a party to this application.
The applicant who claims to have moved in good time, and who is willing to comply with any conditions which this court may impose and to issue security for the due performance of the decree, bases his application on the grounds inter alia, that he has a good appeal, and that unless stay is granted, he will suffer substantial loss.
The application is however opposed by ILLIANA INGASIALI REGINA and FLORAH MAKOKHA KUNDU (‘the respondents’), on several grounds, which are mainly that not only is he guilty of laches, but that he is in contempt as he has refused to comply with court orders; that his appeal which is nevertheless defective for failure to comply with Order L rule 15(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, has no chances of success.
It is on record that this applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the contentious judgment.
It is trite law, that ‘an appeal is not automatically to operate as a stay of execution and the right to a decree- holder having been determined by a competent court it is not fair that he should be deprived of the fruits of his decree mainly because the debtor has preferred an appeal’(Carter and sons v Deposit Protection Fund Board CA (Nai) 291/1997).
Therefore, in an application of this nature, the court is called upon to exercise its discretion, and it is for the applicant to satisfy the conditions of Order XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
I have taken the submissions of both counsel into account, and do note that though he applies for an order of stay of execution of a decree, he however concedes, and it is common ground, that the decree has yet to issue. It is also clear that the order which he refers to has not been extracted.
Order XLI is clear in its application in that the same can only be invoked where a decree or order has been issued, which would mean that execution is imminent and in which case, the applicant stands to suffer substantially.
It is my humble opinion that, since neither the decree has been issued and nor has the order which he refers to been extracted, this application is premature and it fails to meet the requirements of Order XLIV.
It is therefore dismissed with costs.
Dated at Eldoret this 18th day of July 2005.
JEANNE GACHECHE
Judge
Delivered at Eldoret this 26th day of July 2005.
GEORGE DULU
Ag. Judge
Delivered in the presence of:
Mr. Gicheru for defendants
Mr. Kigamwa for plaintiffs