[2006] KEHC 3420 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for grant of stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant had filed an appeal, demonstrated the risk of substantial loss, made the application without unreasonable delay, and was willing to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 3420 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joel K. Koech; Respondent: Jemifa Isangalo Isemele & 4 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 5 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed with conditions.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Criteria, 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
Joel K. Koech
Appellant
Jemifa Isangalo Isemele & 4 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether substantial loss would result to the applicant if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had satisfied the requirements for grant of stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant had filed an appeal, demonstrated the risk of substantial loss, made the application without unreasonable delay, and was willing to provide security for due performance. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution on condition that the applicant deposits KES 150,000 as security in a joint account of the advocates for both parties within thirty days, failing which the stay would lapse automatically. Costs of the application were awarded to the respondents.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed with conditions.
Orders
- There shall be stay of execution pending appeal provided the applicant pays KES 150,000 into a joint account in the names of the advocates for both parties within thirty days.
- If the applicant fails to pay the security within thirty days, the order for stay shall stand discharged automatically.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
Civil Appeal 5 of 2005
JOEL K. KOECH .....................................................................................................................APPELLANT
V E R S U S
JEMIFA ISANGALO ISEMELE & 4 OTHERS ...............................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The Applicant/Appellant, JOEL KOECH, applied to this court on 01. 02. 2005 for an order of stay of execution of the decree in Kakamega SPMCC No.1372 of 1995 in which judgment was delivered on 15-12-04. He submitted in support of the application that he had filed appeal which had chances of success, and that he would suffer irreparable loss if stay was not granted. The application was supported by the affidavit of Charles Lutta Kasamani, an advocate.
The Respondents, JENIFA ISANGALO ISEMELE & 4 OTHERS opposed the application by filing three grounds of opposition in which they contended that the application was defective and that the appeal had no merit and that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of the order for stay.
When the application came up for hearing before me, Mr. Ombaye, learned counsel who held brief for Mr. Kasamani for the Applicant, urged the court to grant the order sought and relied on the affidavit of Mr. Kasamani in support of the application.
The advocate for the Respondents who did not attend court on the hearing of the application.
I have duly perused the application and the grounds of opposition and given due consideration to the submission by the applicant’s advocate.
The grant of stay under rule 4 of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Rules on which the application was premised is discretionary on the court. An applicant for an order for stay under Rule 4 (supra) must satisfy the court:
(1)that the applicant has already filed an appeal and
(2)that there is sufficient cause for the grant of the order and
(3)that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made, and
(4) that the application was made without unreasonable delay and
(5) that the applicant will furnish security for the due performance of the decree or order that may ultimately be binding on the applicant.
The judgment of the lower court binds the applicant to pay to
the Respondents a total of Shs.350,000/= plus costs. Regrettably the advocate for the Plaintiff does not appear to have extracted a formal decree yet. Nor have I seen a Certificate of Taxation of the costs in this matter.
However, considering the application, I am satisfied that the Applicant has met the criteria set under Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. I allow the application and order that there shall be stay pending appeal providing that the Applicant pays into a joint account to be in the names of the Advocate for the Applicant and the advocate for the Respondent the sum of Shs.150,000/= as security within thirty (30) days from the date of this order failing which the order for stay shall stand discharged without any need for an application to that effect. The costs of the application shall be borne by the Applicant.
Dated at Kakamega this 24th day of February 2006
G. B. M. KARIUKI
J U D G E