[2004] KEHC 508 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 508 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, as the funds in question were to be deposited into a joint account and not paid directly to the respondent. The precedent cited by the applicant was distinguished on the basis that, in that case, the tenant was paying agreed rent, whereas...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 508 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Jacinta Pere; Appellant: Njenga Marimbel; Respondent: Lukas Kibegwa Okara t/a Kenagwa Enterprises; Respondent: Ole Kejuado County Council
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 228 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Eviction Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Security for Costs Eviction Orders

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

Parties

Jacinta Pere

Appellant

Njenga Marimbel

Appellant

Lukas Kibegwa Okara t/a Kenagwa Enterprises

Respondent

Ole Kejuado County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss to warrant a stay of execution of the lower court's order.
  2. 2 Whether payment into a joint account constitutes sufficient security or mitigates risk of loss.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, as the funds in question were to be deposited into a joint account and not paid directly to the respondent. The precedent cited by the applicant was distinguished on the basis that, in that case, the tenant was paying agreed rent, whereas here, the applicant had not shown any comparable risk or loss. Consequently, the application for stay was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for stay is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.